NARESHKUMAR KANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1631/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nareshkumar Kantilal Patel, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the addition of Rs. 1,55,610 to his income as unexplained agricultural income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer based on the absence of land ownership records in the assessee's name and insufficient evidence of agricultural income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the evidence provided by the assessee, which included documents showing sales of agricultural produce and corresponding bank transactions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25815 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N. DIVATIA; SAMIR VORA; A.RS
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1631/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Nareshkumar Kantilal Patel, Shop No. 6/643/B-2, Gundra, Khokhar Chakla, At. Dholka, Dist. Ahmedabad-382225 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AQZPP1700B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, A.Rs. Respondent by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi, vide order dated 26.03.2024 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The order passed by U/s. 250 passed on 26.03.2024 for AY 2017-18 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)” upholding the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- made by A.O towards agriculture income as unexplained income is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A), Delhi has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering the detailed submission uploaded on 18.03.2024 along with various documents/evidence inclusive of sales bill of agriculture produce. ITA No. 1631/Ahd/2024 Nareshkumar Kantilal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 3.1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- made by A.O towards agriculture income as unexplained income. 3.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A), Delhi in upholding the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- made by A.O towards agriculture income as unexplained income.” 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 110 days. The delay of 110 days is condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessing officer received information that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹19.27 lakhs in his bank account during the demonetisation period, but it had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown agricultural income of ₹1,55,610/-. The assessee, in response to notice issued by the assessing officer filed copy of 7/12 extracts to show the source of agricultural income. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the 7/12 extracts show that the land was not in the name of the assessee and further, during the course of assessment, the assessee was not able to furnish the supporting evidences in support of agricultural income. Accordingly, the assessing officer added a sum of ₹1,55,610/- as unexplained agricultural income in the hands of the assessee. ITA No. 1631/Ahd/2024 Nareshkumar Kantilal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, with the following observations: “5.1 The contention of appellant has been gone through. It is noticed from para no. to the impugned assessment order wherein the assessing officer has mentioned the appellant submitted only copy of 7/12 which didn't contain name of the appellant and no supporting evidences have been submitted in respect of agricultural income and hence the agriculture income shown by assessee is had been treated as unexplained income and added to the total income of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings three__ nos.7/12 Forms have been submitted by the appellant belonging to village: Dholka, Guiarat. None of the 3 Form 7/12 contains the name of the appellant. Therefore, the mute question that arises is without there being no land how can he has earned income? The appellant has said nothing about it. It is also noticed that two agriculture sales bills both dtd. 19-11-2016 (one belonging to Khetiwadi Utpan Bajar Samiti, Bavla and other of belonging to Khetiwadi Utpan Bajar Samiti, Dholka) have been submitted. Both the bills contain two names and not only the single name of the appellant viz. Kantibhai Desaibhai Patel and Nareshbhai Kantibhai. From the records it is seen that the name of the appellant is Nareshbhai Kanthibhai Patel. So in absence of his full name of the bill it is not ascertainable that the bill consist name of appellant only and of no other person. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the agriculture income Rs. 1,55,610/- considered as a unexplained income is quite wrong and unjustified is not found acceptable due to foregoing discussion and factual aspects. Accordingly, the action of assessing officer is held correct and hence the addition of Rs. 1,55,610/- as unexplained income is confirmed.” 6. The assessee is in appeal before us the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had furnished two agricultural produce bills, cash book, bank book etc. before Ld. CIT(Appeals) and further, it was explained vide submission dated 18-03-2024 that the agricultural income was from sales made at APMC Bavla, which was received by the assessee through banking channels, as per the purchase invoices issued by APMC. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the submissions / supporting documents furnished by the assessee and confirmed the addition of ₹ 1,55,610/- made by the assessing officer towards agricultural income as unexplained income. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on ITA No. 1631/Ahd/2024 Nareshkumar Kantilal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the facts on record, we observe that during the year under consideration, the assessee had declared agricultural income of ₹1,55,610/- in support of which the assessee also produced supporting evidences during the course of appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals), while disregarding the evidence filed by the assessee observed that in absence of full name of the assessee on the bill, it is not ascertainable that the bill consists of name of assessee only, and no other person. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to consider that the aforesaid receipts from sale of agricultural produce were received by APMC (as per the purchase invoices issued by APMC) and the payments were made to the assessee through banking channels. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has omitted to consider these crucial aspects while deciding the issue against the assessee. Accordingly, in our considered view, looking into the facts of the assessee’s case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not allowing the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 12/03/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 12/03/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY ITA No. 1631/Ahd/2024 Nareshkumar Kantilal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 5– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 10.03.2025(Dictated by Hon’ble Member over his dragon software) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 10.03.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .03.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 12.03.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 12.03.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 12.03.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "