MOHAMMED SULEMAN ABDUL HAKIM KOTHI,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील (एस एस) सं./I.T.(SS)A. No. 30/Ahd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम Mohammed Suleman Abdul DCIT / Hakim Kothi Central Circle-2, Vs. Salamat Society, Godhra, Vadodara Panchmahal, Gujarat - 389001 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ADQPK5287J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Biren Shah, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 07/04/2026 19/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement (आदेश)/ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 31.10.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16.

IT(SS)A No.30/Ahd/2025[Mohammed Suleman Abdul Hakim Kothi vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 –

“1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act is bad in law. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Assessee, the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering the facts of the case and responses filed by the assessee, is bad in law and deserves to be cancelled. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Assessee, assessment under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in absence of incriminating material is bad in law and invalid. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Assessee's case, learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,78,252 being 40% of Gross agriculture receipt declared by assessee in his Income Tax Return of Rs. 39,96,880. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Assessee's case, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted addition of Rs. 35,96,880/- made under section 69A of the Act in toto. 6. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in ‘Kothi Group’ of Godhra on 05.11.2020 and the assessee was also covered in the said search action. During the course of search in one of the group concerns, an affidavit of the assessee was found and seized from the premise of M/s. Kothi Steel Ltd. On perusal of the said affidavit, it revealed that the assessee in the said affidavit had mentioned that the assessee’s monthly income was Rs.24000/-. The AO calculated the annual income on the said basis at Rs.2,88,000/- per annum. He noted that in the Income Tax Return

IT(SS)A No.30/Ahd/2025[Mohammed Suleman Abdul Hakim Kothi vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 3 –

the assessee had declared agricultural income of Rs.35,96,880/-. In the assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act, the AO show caused the assessee in this respect. The assessee explained that the assessee alongwith his family member owned 109.521 Acres of land and that the assessee had rightly shown the agricultural income in the return of income. The AO, however, observed that the assessee’s brother had also shown income from agricultural land. He observed that the combined agricultural income of both the brothers from the same land of 109.521 Acres was Rs.88.8 Lakhs, however, the said income was inconsistent with the prevailing agricultural income data/real world data. He calculated the average yield of the crops per acre in the area and observed that the total agricultural income shown by the assessee and his brother did not commensurate with the total agricultural holding of the assessee and his brother. He rejected the entire claim of agricultural income and, accordingly, made the impugned addition of Rs.35,96,880/- into the income of the assessee.

IT(SS)A No.30/Ahd/2025[Mohammed Suleman Abdul Hakim Kothi vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 4 –

group concern of the assessee during the common search action in case of ‘Kothi Group of case’, would reveal that the said affidavit has been executed by the assessee to be furnished before the State Bank of India as a guarantor in respect of the credit facility agreed to be granted by the said Bank to the borrower M/s. Kothi Steel Ltd. In the said affidavit, the details of the immovable property and liquid assets of the assessee have been mentioned. In the said affidavit, the immovable property mentioned by the assessee is 4.21 acres, whereas, it is not disputed by the AO that the total agricultural land holding of the asessee alongwith his brother was 109.521 acres of land. Further, it is also not disputed by the AO that the agricultural income is received either half yearly or annually as it is based on sale of seasonal crops. However, in the affidavit the monthly income of the assessee at Rs.24000/- per month has been mentioned. The said affidavit does not constitute any incriminating material relating to the agricultural income of the assessee. Considering the said affidavit as incriminating material, is wholly unjustified. The said affidavit, in our view, cannot be termed as incriminating material for making the impugned additions. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of completed / not abated assessment years, the addition cannot be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during course of search action. Since, we have held that the said

IT(SS)A No.30/Ahd/2025[Mohammed Suleman Abdul Hakim Kothi vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 5 –

affidavit relied upon by the AO does not constitute any incriminating material for the purpose of making the impugned addition, therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable in this case. Therefore, the impugned additions are not sustainable. The same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted.

This Order pronounced on 19/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19/06/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad