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.

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.

In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, with the following observations: "5.1 The contention of appellant has been gone through. It is noticed from para no. to the impugned assessment order wherein the assessing officer has mentioned the appellant submitted only copy of 7/12 which didn't contain name of the appellant and no supporting evidences have been submitted in respect of agricultural income and hence the agriculture income shown by assessee is had been treated as unexplained income and added to the total income of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings three nos.7/12 Forms have been submitted by the appellant belonging to village: Dholka, Guiarat. None of the 3 Form 7/12 contains the name of the appellant. Therefore, the mute question that arises is without there being no land how can he has earned income? The appellant has said nothing about it. It is also noticed that two agriculture sales bills both dtd. 19-11-2016 (one belonging to Khetiwadi Utpan Bajar Samiti, Bavla and other of belonging to Khetiwadi Utpan Bajar Samiti, Dholka) have been submitted. Both the bills contain two names and not only the single name of the appellant viz. Kantibhai Desaibhai Patel and Nareshbhai Kantibhai. From the records it is seen that the name of the appellant is Nareshbhai Kanthibhai Patel. So in absence of his full name of the bill it is not ascertainable that the bill consist name of appellant only and of no other person. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the agriculture income Rs.1,55,610/- considered as a unexplained income is quite wrong and unjustified is not found acceptable due to foregoing discussion and factual aspects. Accordingly, the action of assessing officer is held correct and hence the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- as unexplained income is confirmed."

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 the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders.

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) VICE PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 12/03/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBERआदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/