GAURANGBHAI BHAGUBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.

Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal ex-parte. Appellant prays that appeal may be set aside to file of AO or CIT(A) as your honours deems fit.

The assessee had total cash deposits of Rs. 12 lakhs in three accounts deposited during demonetization period. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee submitted that he is an agriculturist and is doing agriculture on his own land. The assessee also furnished the 7/12 extracts of agricultural lands and also furnished the copies of a few sales bills. On perusal of the sales bills. The Assessing Officer held that it is not possible to identify the persons to whom the crop has been sold by the assessee on his own bill book. Further, the Assessing Officer held that a few bills were around Rs. 2 lakhs and 3 lakhs. It was also not justifiable whether the persons have paid this much amount in cash to the assessee and whether they have the creditworthiness or not. Assessing Officer held that no evidence to prove the agricultural activity done on the land and no satisfactory evidence regarding details of crops grown on the land, was furnished by the assessee. It was argued before us that the assessee had 10 acres of agricultural land as per 7/12 extracts and the Revenue Authorities failed to give due credence to the submission of the assessee. On going through the record before us, we find that no inquiry has been conducted by the Assessing Officer nor any evidence has been brought on record but made addition simply on surmises. Hence, in the absence of any material evidence, the addition Gaurangbhai B patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– made by the Assessing Officer on account of agricultural income as well as credit of Rs.2,61,664/- is hereby directed to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.