RAMESH MOHANLAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI V. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 2428/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appellant, Ramesh Mohanlal Zaveri, who claimed agricultural income which was added to his income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act by the Ld. AO due to lack of evidence. The appellant contested the addition, arguing that the cash deposits during the demonetization period were from agricultural sales. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding the appellant's explanations unconvincing. The ITAT, considering new evidence presented at the hearing, decided to remit the case back to the Ld. AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668701 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASIF KAR MALI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANYOGITA KAMBLE

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “J(SMC)” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 2428/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramesh Mohanlal Zaveri 7/226, Ram Nivas, Sion East Mumbai-400 022. Vs. ITO Ward 26(2)(5) Mumbai PAN : AAAPZ1305K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Sanyogita Kamble Revenue by : Shri Asif Karmali Date of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 27/06/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The only issue to be decided in the above captioned appeal is whether claim of agricultural income of the appellant is correct or not. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant states that he has got sale and purchase register of agricultural products grown and sold. Sale proceeds of this agricultural income were deposited in the bank account during demonetization period and hence the same cannot be doubted by the Revenue. 2. From the assessment order, it is observed that the Ld. AO posted the case for hearing and sought for certain details like copy of audited profit and loss account, balance-sheet, capital account alongwith schedule and tax audit report, copy of income tax return filed by the appellant for A.Ys. 2014- 15 and 2016-17, details of bank accounts maintained by the appellant for the above three years, cash book and stock register, source of each deposits in the bank account during demonetization period alongwith corroborative evidence. From the assessment order, it is observed that the appellant deposited cash of Rs. 17.51 lakh in his bank account. The Ld. AO found that Ramesh Mohanlal Zaveri 2 there is no evidence to substantiate the agro products being cultivated and harvested on the agricultural land. The appellant has not produced any valid documents relating to agricultural income owned/possessed. Apart from this, the Ld. AO noted that no documentary evidence produced in respect of expenses incurred to earn the agricultural income and specifying the quantity of agricultural produce and items of purchases involved. In view of the same, the Ld. AO invoked section 69A of the I.T. Act and added Rs. 17.50 lakh while completing the assessment. 3. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld. AO, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. After taking into consideration the submissions of the appellant, Ld. CIT(A) agreed that the contention of Ld. AO and confirmed the addition. Ld. CIT(A) held that the explanation for source of cash deposited during demonetization period is not convincing as there were no cash sale in preceding financial year and period subsequent to the current financial year. As the appellant has not furnished list of parties with their identity to whom cash sales were made, Ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the appellant could not explain satisfactorily the source of cash deposited in his bank account. Ld. CIT(A) also came to the conclusion that the addition under section 69A of the Act can be made as the appellant was found to be owner of the cash and deposited the same in his bank account and the appellant has not explained the source properly. Finally, the addition made under section 69A of 115BBE of the Act were correctly invoked by the Ld. AO. Addition made by the Ld. AO was confirmed. 5. As the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition, the appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT pleading that he has got all the evidences relating to stock register, crops sold, evidence to demonstrate that cash deposited is only out of sale proceeds of agricultural income. Copy of cash book was also filed before the Bench at the time of hearing. Ramesh Mohanlal Zaveri 3 6. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) and argued that the addition should be confirmed as there is no evidence for claim relating to agricultural income and hence addition made by the Ld. AO should be confirmed. 7. Heard both sides and perused the material filed by the Ld. AR of the appellant. Material filed and evidences produced before the ITAT now at the time of hearing, was not been produced before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). Taking a lenient view, request of Ld. AR of the appellant that the matter may be remitted back to the Ld. AO has been taken into consideration. In view of the same, the entire issue relating to genuineness of cash deposits and claim of agricultural income is remitted to the file of the Ld. AO to examine all contentions of appellant afresh and pass a speaking order after giving an effective opportunity to the appellant. 8. The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS "