JIGAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence filed by the assessee regarding agricultural income and receipts. The matter requires verification of these evidences.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return for AY 2020-21 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,750/- and claimed exemption for agricultural income of Rs. 1,21,19,751/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,77,16,980/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was made without properly appreciating the evidence filed by the assessee?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2020-21.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. The Learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.1,77,16,980/- made by the learned ITO (Assessment Unit) as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 & taxed at 60% u/s.115BBE of the Act. The addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) NFAC deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now.
2. The Learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not properly appreciating the facts, various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings which ought to have
3. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) NFAC is invalid and bad in law. It be so held now.”
The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21 on 10.01.201 declaring total income of Rs.4,750/-. The assessee claimed exemption income of Rs.1,21,19,751/- being agricultural income. The assessee vide submission dated 05.03.2022 submitted that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activities and is having agricultural income and rent income. The assessee is also Director in Kanhai Investment & Trading Private Limited, Jigar Contractors Private Limited, Rajiv Properties Private Limited and Jigar Communication Private Limited. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on account of agricultural income (non- business ITR) and large cash deposit compared to returned income. Accordingly, notices were issued. The assessee filed the details as mentioned on page no.4 of the Assessment Order. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,77,16,980/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not considered the evidences filed by the assessee, more specifically mentioned on page no.4 of the Assessment Order, and overlooking the same, has made the addition. The Ld. AR also relied upon the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2017- 18 being order dated 22.11.2024, wherein the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A).
The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Oder and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not at all considered the evidences filed by the assessee including that of agricultural income and the receipts given by the assessee while earning the agricultural income. Therefore, this issue needs verification in consonance with the evidences filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the file Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jigar Patel vs. ITO Page 3 of 3 of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences and after taking cognisance of the same, decide the issue as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 12th February, 2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
