INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALANPUR vs. IMRANBHAI UMARBHAI QURESHI, BANASKANTHA

The matter was carried in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee reiterated the contention made before the Assessing Officer. He further contended that the Assessing Officer had made the addition without appreciating the evidences filed before him evidencing the fact of cash withdrawals made for making payment to farmers from whom the bulls were purchased. He furnished all evidences of business carried out by him of sale and purchase of bulls to the Ld. CIT(A) who forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer for his report. The remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer and the assessee’s response was also taken by the Ld. CIT(A) to the remand report. The Assessing Officer had objected to the admission of the additional evidences by the assessee but the Ld. CIT(A) overruled the objection noting that there was sufficient cause with the assessee for not having produced the evidences during assessment proceedings. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer had failed to comment on the documents submitted by the assessee justifying the withdrawals made from his bank account for making payment to the farmers, noting the evidences to be filed both during the assessment proceedings and even in remand proceedings. He noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire withdrawals without considering the nature of the assessee’s business and without rebutting his claim with concrete reasoning. Therefore, he held that in the absence of any inquiry, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not appropriate. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had submitted evidences of purchase and sales of bulls in support of his claim of ITO vs. Imranbhai Umarbhai Qureshi Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4 - carrying out the business of purchase and sales of bulls and had also returned commission income earned from the same to tax, therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case he held the withdrawals made by the assessee to be duly explained and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8.89 crores under Section 69C of the Act.

Aggrieved by the same the Revenue has come up in appeal before us.

We have heard both the parties and have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and also the documents submitted before us in Paper Book filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. The issue before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly treated the amount of cash withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account of Rs. 8.89 crores as duly explained and not in the nature of unexplained expenditure as treated by the Assessing Officer.

The case of the assessee is that he is in the business of taking bulls from farmers and sending them to slaughter house and on the receipt of money from the slaughter houses in his bank account he withdraws cash for making payment to farmers who lived in villages. To support his explanation, the assessee filed:  the entire sale register showing date-wise sale amount and also details of major parties to whom sale was made:  the entire purchase register containing the list of parties to whom the cash payments were made,  the entire cash book,  copy of bank book, ITO vs. Imranbhai Umarbhai Qureshi Asst.Year –2017-18 - 5 -  copy of ledger account of all parties from whom amounts was received,  copy of ledger account of farmers to whom cash was paid  sample copies of bills of purchase and sale of bills were also filed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 26/08/2025