SATYAJIT PRAVINSINH KUMPAWAT,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, GANDHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 695/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2020-21Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)5 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that minimal expenses were justified due to factors like owning a water facility and low labor requirements, and noted that the sale receipts were not disputed. Finding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 15% reasonable, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in agricultural activities, declared agricultural income but claimed very low expenses (5.82% of gross income). The Assessing Officer added 30% of the net agricultural income (Rs. 28,67,967/-) under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) subsequently restricted this disallowance to 15% (Rs. 14,33,984/-).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance of expenses related to agricultural income to 15% under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, treating it as unexplained cash credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMARSHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Agal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 24.04.2025Pronounced: 02.05.2025

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील!य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →