PARSHOTMBHAI PATEL,ARVALLI vs. THE I.T.O. WARD-1, MODASA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1776/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 June 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including land extracts and bills, to substantiate his agricultural income. The AO had ignored these details, and the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a farmer, declared agricultural income in his return. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 31,76,222/- as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxed it under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural income shown by the assessee was unexplained, and if the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was justified despite the evidence provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1776/AHD/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Parshotmbhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, At-Anandpura Kampa, Income Tax Office, Po-Khalikpur, College Campus, Vs. Ta-Modasa Dist-Arvalli, Modasa Modasa, Gujarat Gujarat PAN: AZKPP8252A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.04.2026 : 18.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has erred in not considering the grievously submissions, evidences filed, particularly the fact of having revised the computation of has in on income to correct the bona fide mistake, and addition the erred confirming Rs.31,76,222/ made u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained agricultural income, and taxing it u/s 115BBE of the Act. (2) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the learned NFAC ought to have accepted that there was a bona fide error in showing double agricultural income due to software/technical glitch, and ought to have deleted the entire addition as prayed for. (3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.”

ITA No.1776/AHD/2025 Mr. Parshotmbhai Patel 3. The assessee filed return of income on 30.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.5,72,650/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons “agricultural income”. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was issued and duly served on assessee. The Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) observed that the assessee has shown agricultural receipts of Rs.35,76,222/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a farmer and has income from agricultural activities and regularly offering his agricultural income in his return of income in past years also. The assessee has given the details of bank statement in respect of the agricultural income along with the agricultural bills before the AO. During the assessment proceedings the assessee also filed his ownership proof in Uttara No.7/12 extract as well as Gam Namuno 8A & Hak Patrak-6 (land ledger). These documents categorically mention that assessee is drawing agricultural income, in fact the bills which were submitted was more than Rs.8,00,000/- and the same was credited/received by the assessee in his bank statement on 11.04.2019. The assessee also sold his agricultural produce in the government scheme of minimum support price to the Government State Civil Supply Ltd. The assessee has received from the relevant Gujarat Government Agency certain amount and the same is reflected in his passbook on 08.04.2019 and 28.02.2020. All these details were before the AO as well as before the CIT(A), but both the authorities ignored the same.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee did not prove that the assessee received agricultural income or any other amount deriving from agricultural produce.

ITA No.1776/AHD/2025 Mr. Parshotmbhai Patel 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given all the relevant documents related to his agricultural income including that of the agricultural produce, details of land extracts, the bills connected to the agricultural trading/produce to the concerned parties and the bank statement giving the details of the said credit entries. The AO has totally ignored these details given by the assessee. In fact, the agricultural income in the past years have been accepted by the Department and in continuation the assessee is deriving the agricultural income from his agricultural activities in A.Y. 2020-21 as well. Thus, merely on the basis that the assessee has revised his income cannot be the criteria for rejecting/disallowing the assessee his agricultural income. Therefore, the addition u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained agricultural income does not sustain.

8.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2026

Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated: 18.06.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. Guard File

By order,

Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →