RAMESHBHAI POPATBHAI CHAUDHARI,MEHSANA V. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

MA 63/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application by Rameshbhai Popatbhai Chaudhari against an order of the ITAT concerning unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. The assessee contended that there were errors in the appreciation of facts by the ITAT in their earlier decision, specifically regarding the amount of agricultural income and the exclusion of his wife's savings in explaining the source of cash deposits. The ITAT, after reviewing the application and hearing arguments from both sides, found no factual inaccuracies in their previous order and dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837391 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESHWAR P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: RUSHIN PATEL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 63/Ahd/2025 IN I.T.A. No. 1961/Ahd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Chaudhari Near Devi Mata, Pamol- 382820, Ta: Vijapur, Mehsana बनाम/ Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Mehsana ̾थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ANEPC5349M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथŎ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Rushin Patel, AR ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 19/02/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER The present Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeks rectification in the order passed by the ITAT in assessee’s appeal i.e. ITA No. 1961/Ahd/2024. It has been contended that while adjudicating the issue before it certain facts were wrongly appreciated or failed to be appreciated by the ITAT. 2. We have gone through the application filed by the assessee and have also heard the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also the Ld.DR. In the order impugned before us the issue related to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of source of cash deposited in Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 63/Ahd/2025 [Rameshbhai Popatbhai Chaudhari vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – the bank account remaining unexplained. The order holds the assessee to have explained the source to the extent of Rs.10 Lakhs, finding the assessee to have agricultural income of approximately Rs.3 Lakhs and having returned labour contracting income of Rs.10 Lakhs. 3. As per the application before us, one of the factual mistake in the order was that the agricultural income returned by the assessee was Rs.12.5 Lakhs and the ITAT, therefore, had erred in noting agricultural income to the tune of Rs.3 Lakhs only. 4. We have gone through the records before us and we find this contention to be out rightly false. In a synopsis chart filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us for explaining the source of cash deposits, we find, it was categorically mentioned that since the assessee had disclosed gross agricultural income in the subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 averaging Rs.2.50 Lakhs, the said amount can be safely and reasonably to be assumed to be a gross agricultural income of the impugned year before us i.e. A.Y 2017-18. Clearly as per the assessee’s own admission before us, the gross agricultural income was Rs.2.5 Lakhs for the impugned year, the contention, therefore, that the assessee had returned agricultural income of Rs.12.5 Lakhs is blatantly incorrect and contrary to the submissions made before us during the course of hearing. The same is therefore, rejected. 5. The other mistake pointed out before us was that the assessee was not allowed the benefit of savings of his wife, which as per Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 63/Ahd/2025 [Rameshbhai Popatbhai Chaudhari vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2017 ought to have been allowed to the tune of Rs.2.5 Lakhs. In the chart of synopsis of source of cash deposi filed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee during the corse of hearing in the appeal,referred to above in our order, there is no such pleading of any benefit being granted to the assessee on account of savings of his wife. Even as per the CBDT Circular, this benefit of attributing cash deposits out of opening balance available to the extent of Rs.2.5 Lakhs is available only to those assessees in whose accounts cash is found deposited and no benefit is to be given to relatives of assessees. Therefore, we hold, there is no mistake in the order of the ITAT for not allowing benefit of savings of assessee’s wife explaining the source of cash deposit in the assessee’s bank account. 6. No other mistake was pointed out before us. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any mistake in the order of the ITAT as pointed out before us and the application filed by the assessee in this regard therefore, needs to be rejected. 8. In the result, Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced on 19/02/2026 Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19/02/2026 S. K. SINHA TRUE COPY Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 63/Ahd/2025 [Rameshbhai Popatbhai Chaudhari vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 4 – 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 on 11.02.2026 2.Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 11.02.2026 3.Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. 4.Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement 5.Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 19.02.2026 6.Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 19.02.2026 7.Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………. 8.The date on which the file goes to the Asstt. Registrar for signature on the order…………………… 9.Date of Dispatch of the Order………Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member Printed from counselvise.com "