RAM NITISH KOTAK,MUMBAI vs. WARD 24(3)(1), INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 19.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) (collectively referred to as lower authorities) erred in making the addition of undisclosed income of Rs. 1,35,32,794 under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has unexplained the source of cash credit of that year. a) The appellant submits that the cash deposit was on account of agricultural income and which is exempt from tax. b) The appellant submits that the agricultural income earned was from sale of mangoes, cashew, supari and coconuts. c) The appellant submits that the provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the ground details of the income earned are provided to the lower authorities along with the supporting documents. d) The appellant further submits that the lower authorities rejected the contention of sale of agricultural product on the ground that the land is barren and infertile without considering the 7/12 extracts of the agricultural land. The appellant prays that addition under Section 68 should be deleted and income reported in the return of income should be considered. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance by AO for the deduction claimed under Section 80TTA and 80G of Chapter VIA of the Act without any reason thereof. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and the record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is a delay of 94 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. She has filed an affidavit of the assessee explaining the delay. While reading the contents of the affidavit of the assessee, the learned AR of the assessee submits that the wife of the assessee was suffering from breast cancer and the assessee was attending to her during the relevant period. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has a good case on merit and is likely to succeed if the case is heard on merit. 3. On merit, the learned AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made an addition under section 68 of Rs. 1.35 crore. Before the AO, the assessee explained that the deposit in the bank is a sale proceeds of agricultural produce. The assessee has sufficient agricultural holdings in Raigad District, wherein the assessee is cultivating various crops and have mango, supari, cashew and coconut plants. The assessee is having sufficient agricultural holdings. In three subsequent assessment years, agricultural income has been accepted. The learned AR submits that before the lower authorities, the assessee furnished sufficient evidence to show the details of agricultural holdings, location of land and other details. The learned AR submits that the entire addition is liable to be deleted. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior DR for the Revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay raised by the learned AR of the assessee, would submit that the Bench may take an appropriate view in accordance with law. However, on merit, the learned Senior DR for the Revenue supported the order of the AO and the learned CIT(A). The learned Senior DR for the Revenue submits that while filing the return of income, the assessee has not shown any agricultural income. The assessee has shown business income from consultancy, long-term capital gain, short-term capital gain and interest income. As per the information available with the Assessing Officer, the assessee made huge cash deposits in Axis Bank Limited in Mumbai. In order to verify the source of cash deposits, the assessee was asked to furnish a reconciliation statement regarding the opening and closing balances, along with the debit and credit entries. However, no response was furnished. Finally, vide reply dated 25-11-2016, the assessee furnished the cash book for the financial year 2013-14 and explained that he has received commission income from various parties and also earned income from agricultural land. Agricultural income was not reflected in the return of income. However, in the computation of income, the assessee has shown net agricultural income of Rs. 48,48,379/-, which was shown under the head “Income from Other Sources”. Even to ascertain the genuineness of the agricultural income, a fresh show cause notice was issued to the assessee to furnish supporting evidence to substantiate the agricultural income. The assessee was asked to furnish details of agricultural holdings in Form 7/12, the location of the agricultural land, details of cultivation and sale of agricultural produce, and the area of land with bifurcation into irrigated and unirrigated land. The assessee did not furnish the required details, except furnishing the working of agricultural income and details of expenses.The assessee also stated that he has planted saplings of fruit trees in 2011 and that, in FY 2013-14, he started selling fruit. The saplings were purchased from Coimbatore,Wada and Bhilad through his manager, who is no longer working. The assessee stated that he had planted 5,000 trees. However, from the reply of the assessee, it was not clear as to how much agricultural land the assessee had. The Assessing Officer, in his detailed discussion, disregarded the submissions of the assessee and held that the agricultural income is not supported by bills and vouchers. The assessee has not shown any agricultural income in the return of income. The assessee did not accept such contentions. The AO clearly held that the land shown in the 7/12 extract was barren or infertile land. Thus, the assessee failed to substantiate such contentions. The AO also rejected the claim of the assessee in view of the decision of Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the assessee has not discharged the onus cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits. The evidence furnished by the assessee showed that the land is, in fact, barren and, therefore, there was no question of earning income from agricultural activities. 5. In the rejoinder submission, the learned AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has furnished complete details, including the area of land and the income and expenditure relating to agricultural activities. Still, the lower authorities had not considered such facts and evidences. 6. During the hearing, the Bench asked the learned AR to show the details of the area of agricultural holdings, agricultural equipment, and the manner in which agricultural activities are undertaken by the assessee. The agricultural land is situated in District Raigad, whereas the assessee is residing in Andheri West, Mumbai. The Bench also required the learned AR to explain how the assessee was managing and carrying out the agricultural activities. The learned AR of the assessee submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to furnish all such details and that the matter may be restored to the file of the AOas in the event of filing such evidences it may require verification at the level of assessing officer, before whom the assessee undertakes to furnish all the required details. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of the learned AR of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Considering the fact that the wife of the assessee was suffering from breast cancer and the assessee has furnished a medical certificate from the Doctor certifying such fact, therefore, taking a lenient view, we find that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to the merits of the case. 8. We find that, while filing the return of income, the assessee has not shown any agricultural income. However, when the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with the fact of huge cash deposits in his bank account, the assessee explained that such cash deposits represented commission income and income from agricultural activities. The Assessing Officer issued a specific show-cause notice seeking details of agricultural holdings and other related evidence regarding the agricultural activities. The AO held that the assessee had failed to substantiate the agricultural income with documentary evidence, taking the view that the impugned land was barren land. The AO also objected to the revised computation of income on the ground that he is not empowered to accept a revised computation in the absence of a revised return of income, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT (284 ITR 323 SC). 9. We find that the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO, observing that there is no sufficient evidence and explanation to prove the source of the cash deposits. The assessee has failed to discharge the onus regarding the source of such cash deposits. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee vehemently argued that sufficient evidence has been provided. On our specific questions, the learned AR contended that she is still ready and willing to prove the source of the cash deposits, and the matter may be restored to the file of the AO as in the event of filing such evidences it may require verification at the level of assessing officer. We find neither the cash-flow statement nor the exact area or details of agricultural holdings, location of land, details of agricultural activities, income and expenditure, and other allied evidence have been furnished before lower authorities. We also find a glaring fact that, initially, no agricultural income was furnished in the return of income. However, the assessee, for the first time, claimed agricultural income when he was asked to substantiate the huge cash deposits in Axis Bank. Considering the rival contentions of both the parties, wherein, on the one hand, the assessee submits that sufficient evidence was filed before the lower authorities, while, on the other hand, the learned Senior DR for the revenue by referring the findings of lower authorities submits that the evidence was not sufficient, thus, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the AO for thoroughly examining and verifying the facts of the case in accordance with law and for passing a fresh order. The assessee is also directed to provide complete details of agricultural holdings and to establish whether the land owned by assessee is agricultural or non-agricultural land. The AO shall verify all the relevant facts and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 10. In result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open Court on 20.08.2026 S- S Sd/- /-SS/-SSSS Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 20/08/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai