SHAILESHBHAI FULCHANDBHAI JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the affidavit filed by the assessee, it is stated that by mistake the appellate order was not brought to the knowledge of the Chartered Accountant in time; therefore, there was a delay of 101 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue has no serious objection in condoning the above delay. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and take up the appeal for hearing.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading of furnace oil, fuel oil and bitumen in the name and style of Subhi Impex. The assessee is also IITA No. 104/Ahd/2020 Shaileshbhai Fulchandbhai Jain Vs. ACIT AY : 2016-17 2 having income from other sources as also has agricultural income. For Assessment Year 2016-17, the assessee has filed his return of income on 10.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,18,580/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was issued. As there was no response from the assessee, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.07.2018, 21.08.2018, 27.09.2018 and 13.10.2018 were issued to the assessee. The assessee has made cash deposits between 03.04.2015 to 01.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.23,90,000/-. The assessee vide letter dated 02.11.2018 submitted before the Assessing Officer that, during the financial year, Rs.23,90,000/- has been received by the assessee out of agriculture income and the agriculture expenses of Rs.7,17,000/- was incurred. Therefore, the net agricultural income of Rs.16,73,000/- has been declared by the assessee in the return of income for rate purpose. Vide another letter dated 26.11.2018, the assessee furnished ledger account of agriculture account and expenditure account; however, the assessee has not submitted any evidence regarding the receipt of agricultural income such as sale bill of agricultural produce. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 05.12.2018 to furnish the documentary evidences in respect of cash receipt for sale of agricultural produce on or before 07.12.2018. The assessee was also given another opportunity to furnish the details before 10.12.2018; however, the assessee failed to furnish any such evidence before the Assessing Officer. In the above circumstances, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs.23,90,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also calculated the tax on IITA No. 104/Ahd/2020 Shaileshbhai Fulchandbhai Jain Vs. ACIT AY : 2016-17 3

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order are as follows:-

Aggrieved against the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal, raising the effective solitary ground viz. the CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming addition of IITA No. 104/Ahd/2020 Shaileshbhai Fulchandbhai Jain Vs. ACIT AY : 2016-17 4 Rs.18,30,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, which is nothing but the agricultural income. Further by way of ground No.2, the assessee has pleaded that, “both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the assessee from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order and the action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and principles of natural justice and therefore deserves to be quashed”.

Apart from above, the assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidences for the first time before the Tribunal alongwith copy of agricultural sales bills in page nos. 1-11 and copy of bank book and relevant extract of bank statements from page Nos. 12 to 35. The learned AR appearing for the assessee has pleaded that these documents have not been furnished before the learned Assessing Officer and all these documents being the new documents, the same be admitted and send it back to the Assessing Officer for verification and passing appropriate orders.

Per contra, the learned DR appearing for the Revenue brought our notice the fact that inspite of seven opportunities given to the assessee – that too with specific show-cause notice, the assessee has not furnished the required details before the Assessing Officer. The learned DR also submitted that even at the time of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the same were not produced by the assessee and no specific reason for not producing the same before the lower authorities has been properly explained by the assessee. He accordingly submitted that the Tribunal may take appropriate view in the case of the assessee in the circumstances narrated above.

We have gone through the materials available on record and given our thoughtful consideration. As rightly stated by the learned DR, the assessee was given ample opportunities by the Assessing Officer; however, the assessee has not produced relevant details, documents, bills and bank statements before the Assessing Officer. The case of the assessee is that it is holding agricultural land and also showing agricultural income for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19, i.e. two years prior to the present AY 2016-17 and also two preceding assessment years to the present AY 2016-17. The assessee has given no reason as to why he could not able to produce the basic documents required by the Assessing Officer for allowing the claim of agricultural income by the assessee. It was, in the above circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has held that the agricultural income for the AYs 2014-15 to 2015-16 is around Rs.4 to 7 lakhs, but during this AY 2016-17 the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.23,90,000/-. The assessee has not explained how this much boom in the agricultural income and nature of crop cultivated by him. In the absence of any details furnished by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) estimated the average agricultural income as Rs.5.6 lakhs which is reasonably allowable and he accordingly confirmed the remaining Rs.18.3 lakhs as the unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act.

We can also observe in the assessee’s case that the assessee is non-cooperative with the Assessing Officer in spite of seven opportunities given to him by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has also not furnished the bills, bank statements even before the learned CIT(A) in spite of enough opportunities given by the learned CIT(A). Further, the present appeal is filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 101 days; so, taking into account the overall lethargic attitude of the assessee, we deem it fit to impose a cost of IITA No. 104/Ahd/2020 Shaileshbhai Fulchandbhai Jain Vs. ACIT AY : 2016-17 6

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.