NARESHKUMAR KANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

1 The ld. CIT(A), Delhi has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering the detailed submission uploaded on 18.03.2024 along with various documents/evidence inclusive of sales bill of agriculture produce. Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2–

1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- made by A.O towards agriculture income as unexplained income.

2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A), Delhi in upholding the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- made by A.O towards agriculture income as unexplained income.”

At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 110 days. The delay of 110 days is condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessing officer received information that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹19.27 lakhs in his bank account during the demonetisation period, but it had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown agricultural income of ₹1,55,610/-. The assessee, in response to notice issued by the assessing officer filed copy of 7/12 extracts to show the source of agricultural income. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the 7/12 extracts show that the land was not in the name of the assessee and further, during the course of assessment, the assessee was not able to furnish the supporting evidences in support of agricultural income. Accordingly, the assessing officer added a sum of ₹1,55,610/- as unexplained agricultural income in the hands of the assessee. Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3–

In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, with the following observations:

The assessee is in appeal before us the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had furnished two agricultural produce bills, cash book, bank book etc. before Ld. CIT(Appeals) and further, it was explained vide submission dated 18-03-2024 that the agricultural income was from sales made at APMC Bavla, which was received by the assessee through banking channels, as per the purchase invoices issued by APMC. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the submissions / supporting documents furnished by the assessee and confirmed the addition of ₹ 1,55,610/- made by the assessing officer towards agricultural income as unexplained income. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on Nareshkumar Kantilal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4–

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the facts on record, we observe that during the year under consideration, the assessee had declared agricultural income of ₹1,55,610/- in support of which the assessee also produced supporting evidences during the course of appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals), while disregarding the evidence filed by the assessee observed that in absence of full name of the assessee on the bill, it is not ascertainable that the bill consists of name of assessee only, and no other person. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to consider that the aforesaid receipts from sale of agricultural produce were received by APMC (as per the purchase invoices issued by APMC) and the payments were made to the assessee through banking channels. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has omitted to consider these crucial aspects while deciding the issue against the assessee. Accordingly, in our considered view, looking into the facts of the assessee’s case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not allowing the appeal of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 12/03/2025 (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 12/03/2025