DHAVAL HIMMAT BHANDRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
07.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case:

Regarding a cash credit
1. The Learn income of Rs.
2. The Learne submitted all the transactio
3. The Learne u/s 68 to th suspicion and failed to bring or controvertin
4. The Learne
Act only on th which the ap artificial incre
2. Briefly stated, fa its return of incom
Rs.14,59,180/-. The selected for scrutiny
Income-tax Act, 196
with. During the as observed cash depos assessee. The assess way of income from Assessing Officer how the agriculture incom agriculture income immediately precedin
17 and excess amou
D
ITA addition of agriculture income of Rs. 2
ned CIT(A) erred in adding the genuine
290830/-.
ed CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the ap the evidences to prove the complete gen ons.
ed CIT(A) erred in making the addition as he genuine agriculture income on the ba d surmises, and not based on facts or e g any evidence on record supporting his ng the evidence submitted by the appella ed CIT(A) erred in adding Rs. 290830/- u he assumption that increase in the agricu ppellant has received in A.Y. 2016-17
ease.
facts of the case are that the as me on 04.08.2017 declaring t return of income filed by th y assessment and statutory no 1 (in short ‘the Act’) were issue ssessment proceedings, the As sit in two bank accounts mai see explained source of the cas agriculture, commission incom wever was not convinced with me shown by the assessee and to the extent of such incom ng assessment year i.e. assessm unt of Rs.2,90,830/- over last y
Dhaval Himmat Bhandra
2
A No. 3886/MUM/2024
290830/- as e agriculture ppellant had nuineness of s cash credit asis of mere evidence. He s conclusions nt.
u/s 68 of the ulture income was by an sessee had filed total income at he assessee was otices under the ed and complied ssessing Officer intained by the sh deposit as by me and gift. The the quantum of d restricted the me declared in ment year 2016- ear was held as unexplained cash cre
Ld. CIT(A) also uphe appeal before the Trib above.
3. Before us, the L containing pages 1 to 4. We have heard the relevant material that to support of ca explained same as ou gift. The income from AO but the AO was of Rs.13,64,921/- d consideration for the year as compared t declared in assessm assessment year.
Assessing Officer issu whom the assessee
Mahalaxmi Oil Indus the sale of the agric also submitted copy agricultural land. B contention of the ass
D
ITA edit u/s 68 of the Act. On furt eld the addition. Aggrieved, the bunal by way of raising ground
Ld. Counsel for the assessee file o 89. rival submissions of the parti ls on record. Briefly stated facts ash deposit in two bank accoun ut of income from agriculture, c m commission and gift was not d not satisfied regarding the agri declared by the assessee for t reason that there being increas to the agriculture income of ment year 2016-17 i.e. immedi
During the assessment pr ued notice u/s 133(6) of the Ac sold the agricultural produc stries. The said party duly confi culture produce by the assesse y of the 7/12 extract to sup
But the Assessing Officer did sessee as according to him incre
Dhaval Himmat Bhandra
3
A No. 3886/MUM/2024
ther appeal, the e assessee is in s as reproduced ed a Paper Book ies and perused s of the case are nts, the assessee commission and disturbed by the icultural income the year under se of 27% in the Rs.10,74,091/- iately preceding roceedings, the t to the party to ce namely M/s rmed the fact of e. The assessee pport owning of not accept the ease of 27% was not justified in view technique during the Counsel for the asse not pointed out any evidence provided by has filed evidence in during the year u
Industries. The said
Officer and no defect
Further, the Assessin land but the Assessin of the presumption there was no reason
Ld. Assessing Officer evidences gathered a Chintan Singhvi , ag our opinion, the Ass quantity of agricultu identically same part verified the sales of made by the Assessin only on the assumpt defect in the docum
Accordingly, we set a D
ITA w of no addition to infrastructu e year under consideration. Be essee submitted that the Assess y defect or faults in submiss y the assessee. We find that th n support of sales of the agric under consideration to M/s d party also confirmed before has been pointed out in the sai ng Officer has also verified the o ng Officer only made the additi that being same infrastructure for the increase in the agricultu r also mentioned that on the b and statement recorded on oat ricultural activity on the land w sessing Officer has failed to u ure produced for two financial y ticularly when the Assessing Off f the assessee from third party ng Officer and upheld by the Ld.
tion and presumption without p mentary evidences submitted b aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)
Dhaval Himmat Bhandra
4
A No. 3886/MUM/2024
ure or irrigation fore us, the Ld.
sing Officer has ions made and hat the assessee culture produce
Mahalaxmi Oil e the Assessing id sale quantity.
ownership of the ion on the basis e of agriculture ure income. The basis of pictorial h by him of Sh was accepted. In understand that years cannot be ficer himself has y. The addition
. CIT(A) is based pointing out any y the assessee.
) on the issue in dispute. Thus entire
The grounds of the ap
5. In the result, th
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 24/02/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

D
ITA addition being on the presump ppeals are accordingly allowed.
he appeal of the assessee is allow ced in the open Court on 24/0
/- AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Dhaval Himmat Bhandra
5
A No. 3886/MUM/2024
ption is deleted.

wed.
02/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai