MAHADEV SUBHASH BHATT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PANVEL

Shri Mahadev Subhash Bhatt, assessee appearing in person submitted that the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish documentary evidence to show genuineness of agricultural activities carried out by the assessee. The assessee has all the relevant documents in his possession to prove that the agricultural activities were in fact carried out. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer.

On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Gawali representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate before the Assessing Officer, as well as, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) genuineness of agricultural activities undertaken and the income arising therefrom.

Both sides heard. Orders of authorities below perused. The solitary issue raised in the appeal is against the addition of ₹ 25 lakhs u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The contention of assessee is that the cash amount ₹ 15,00,000/- was deposited in the bank from income from agriculture operations. The assessee has contended that he has necessary relevant documents to prove genuineness of agricultural activities carried out and the income earned therefrom. Taking into consideration the entire facts, we are of the considered view that the issue needs re-visit to the file of Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish all the relevant documents in his possession to show that the agricultural activities were in fact carried out

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.