MAGANBHAI BAHECHARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Maganbhai Bahecharbhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. CA Akshar Mehta, Ward-1(2)(1), Partner DKN & Associates, Ahmedabad. 10-11-12 Buddhadev Complex, Nr. Sevashram Hospital, Sevashram Road, Panchbatti Bharuch-392001. [PAN :DLOPP3563 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Niraj Surti, AR Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal and thereby upholding an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money which as such is an agricultural income not liable to tax and which deserves to be deleted. Maganbhai B Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2–

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in treating the cash deposit of agricultural income of Rs.6,97,860/- already accepted by him as such as unexplained income liable to tax u/s 115BBE.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in fact and in law in not accepting concept of past savings out of agricultural income and hence, any addition out of past savings needs to be deleted entirely. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in levying penal interest u/s 234A of the Act and that it needs to be deleted. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in levying fees u/s 234F of the Act and that it needs to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/or modify any or all grounds of this appeal. 3. At the outset, we find that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed summarily by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that, given an opportunity due compliances will be made before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication de-novo.