TEJASKUMAR SUBHASHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the material, decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand both matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the addition was covered by increased agricultural income and bank withdrawals, and that agricultural income was accepted in a subsequent assessment year. For AY 2017-18, the assessee requested another opportunity. The Tribunal found it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the AO. The assessee is directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The AO is at liberty to pass appropriate orders if the assessee fails to comply. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Tejaskumar Subhashbhai Patel, filed appeals against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 and 2017-18. These orders confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For AY 2015-16, the AO made additions for cash deposits totalling Rs. 43,30,000/-. For AY 2017-18, the AO treated agricultural income of Rs. 42,68,517/- as income from other sources. The assessee had declared agricultural income in both years. The AO issued notices under section 133(6) for AY 2017-18, seeking confirmations from persons from whom land was cultivated. The NFAC/CIT(A) upheld the AO's actions in both cases.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the addition of Rs. 38,47,170/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts for AY 2015-16, as partly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), is justified? - Assessee's contention: The addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is covered by an increase in agricultural income by Rs. 14,11,882/-, and the balance amount was deposited from bank withdrawals of Rs. 24,35,288/-. The AO made assessment under section 144 due to non-compliance with a show cause notice, but in AY 2016-17, agricultural income was accepted in scrutiny assessment. - Revenue's contention: Relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 2. Whether the action of treating agricultural income of Rs. 42,68,517/- as income from other sources for AY 2017-18, as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), is justified? - Assessee's contention: Prayed for one more opportunity to explain the case before the lower authority. - Revenue's contention: Did not object to the prayer for one more opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 44AD,Section 133(6),Section 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
orarnr attetta aftreaxn, axa ~aais, Pa IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, J
SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACC!
Sa sit F./ITA Nos. 339 & 340/SRT/2025 (AYs 2015-16 & 2017-18) (Physical hearing)
UDICIAL MEMBER AND OUNTANT MEMBER
Tejaskumar Subhashbhai Patel
Sayan-394 130 [PAN : ARFPP 7862 D]
Garas Faliyu AT Post Syadla, Olpad,
Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4) Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001
Income Tax Officer,
Vs Ward-2(2)(1) Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001
ardtenelf/ Appellant wef Respondent
Pafitdt @ sik a /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA
Weed BT si S /Revenue by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR
AGS H ANG/Date of hearing 10.09.2025
Squlgun at aNRa/Date of pronouncement 28.11.2025
Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act
PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These two appeals by assessee are directed against separate orders of National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [for short, “Ld. CIT(A)”] both dated 30.01.2024 for the assessment years (AY) 2015-16 and 2017-18, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) under section 144 r.w.s 143(3) of Income-tax Act,
1961 (‘the Act’) on 12.12.2017 and 25.12.2019. 2. Since the facts are almost similar and the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are identical with the consent of both parties, the appeals were heard
together and a common order is passed for the same of convenience and brevity.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.339/SRT/2024 are as under:-
"
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of the Assessing Ofticer by sustaining the addition of Rs.38,47,170/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee.
It is therefore prayed that the addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be deleted.
Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the curse of hearing of the appeal."
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.340/SRT/2024 are as under:-
"
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Assessing Officer in treating the agricultural income of Rs.42,68,517/- as income from other source.
It is therefore prayed that the addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be deleted.
Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the curse of hearing of the appeal."
First we shall take up assessee’s appeal ITA No.339/SRT/2024 for AY 2015-
Brief facts of the case that assessee filed return of income on 22.08.2015 declaring total income Rs.2,02,290/- and exempt income of Rs.4,82,830/- from agriculture. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee filed computation of total income along with balance-sheet, profit and loss account, capital account and other relevant papers were obtained and placed on record. The AO made addition for cash deposit of Rs.14,00,000/- in ICICI Bank Ltd. and Rs.29,30,000/- in Bank of Baroda aggregating to Rs.43,30,000/-. During assessment proceedings, assessee filed letter
dated 25.09.2017 stated that assessee owns 15 bighas ancestral land and he is doing agricultural activities on behalf of his relatives ad measuring 114 bighas. In support assessee filed revenue records in the name of assessee and his relatives and power of attorney given by his relatives. The assessee filed revised computation of total income at Rs.18,94,712/- as agricultural income. The AO added total income of Rs.1,45,81,437/- as undisclosed sources income of assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by AO and appeal was dismissed. That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order of the Ld.
CIT(A) dated 11.07.2024 before us.
During the course of argument, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted a chart of cash deposit and written submission. The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that AO made assessment u/s 144 of the Act as assessee could not comply the show cause notice issued on 27.11.2017 but in subsequent assessment year 2016-17 AO has accepted the agricultural income of Rs.36,63,924/- in scrutiny assessment passed on 17.12.2018. So the details of inquiry made during AY 2016-17 was not available before AO when he passed the assessment order under consideration. The Ld. AR prayed before us that one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee to explain the case before the lower authority.
On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the revenue, relied upon the order of the Ld.
CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and also perused the order of Ld. CIT(A). We find that before Ld.CIT(A) appellant filed detailed submission dated 09.08.2023 and Ld.CIT(A) rejected the explanation on the ground that Power of Attorney holder but he is not entitled to receive the income. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that details of cash deposits and cash withdrawals from the bank were not submitted to him and to AO. Before us Ld. AR has given chart showing details of cash deposits claiming that the addition sustained by Ld.CIT(A) is covered by the increase in agricultural income by Rs,.14,11,882/- and balance amount was deposited out of withdrawals from bank account of Rs.24,35,288/-. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Inthe result, the appeal of the is allowed for statistical purposes.
Facts in brief are that assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.2,70,870/- and agricultural income of Rs.55,93,732/- on 02.08.2017. During the year assessee has declared profit u/s 44AD of the Act amounting to Rs.4,04,026/- on total turnover of Rs.4.44,240/- and shown bank interest of Rs.26,846/- and net agriculture income of Rs.55,93,732/- shown by assessee. The AO opined that assessee did not file the confirmations of the person
from whom land was cultivated by notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO in assessment order assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharathi Cement Corporation (P.) Ltd. Writ Petition No.6260 of 2012. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record carefully. Before us Ld.AR for the assessee filed written submission and prayed that one opportunity should be allowed. The Ld. DR did not object if the matter back to the file of AO with a direction that assessee should be complied and filed relevant documents as and when called for by AO. We deem it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before AO for proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Inthe result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In combine result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/11/2025. (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) chal WaR/Accountant Member zat Faey/Judicial Member
Wd / Surat Dated: 28/11/2025
Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* arexi wt Ufafeft sm@fia/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
ordtareif/ The Appellant
weal The Respondent
TIP Yaa CIT
fauna vfctfe, saa eitcia entero, Yxq/ DR, ITAT, SURAT arg tIsel/ Guard File
By order/ 3&3 a,
//// Bee toler Aaa steht siftrareor, YX
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 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
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jai Ram Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Maa Baglamukhi Construction Thr Propriter Aryan Dhingra vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026