SHRI RAMNIKBHAI JASARAJBHAI PATEL,AT. DHRANGADHRA, DIST. SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-3, SURENDRANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 244/RJT/2023Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 December 2025AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that notices were issued by the CIT(A) for submission of documents, which the appellant did not comply with. The assessee also failed to comply with notices for hearings issued by the AO. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not exercise due care and attention and was negligent in pursuing the case before the AO and CIT(A). Due to this non-cooperative attitude, the Tribunal directed the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 10 days and submit the receipt. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard, in accordance with law. The issue of whether the income was agricultural and the treatment of bank deposits/withdrawals was not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramnikbhai Jasrajbhai Patel, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 29.03.2022. This order upheld an assessment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 19.11.2018, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The AO reopened the case based on reasons recorded and prior approval. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 26.03.2018, but the assessee did not respond or file a return. Despite multiple notices and a show-cause notice during assessment proceedings, the assessee or their representative did not provide any explanation. The AO observed cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 12,10,000/- in the assessee's savings account in Saurashtra Gramin Bank during FY 2012-13, along with other deposits of Rs. 63,097/-. As no explanation was offered, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144, adding Rs. 12,73,097/- as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting the failure to provide explanations despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the lower authorities erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that the appellant is an agriculturist with agricultural income as the sole source, possessing approximately 100 bighas of land cultivated with fruits, seeds, vegetables, and raw cotton, and by treating sale proceeds deposited and withdrawn from an agricultural loan account with Saurashtra Gramin Bank as an undisclosed source of income, thereby wrongly confirming an addition under Section 68, which should be deleted. 2. Whether the lower authorities erred in law and on facts by considering only credit entries of cash deposited in the bank account and ignoring debit entries for cash withdrawals, leading to a vague assessment under Section 144 without considering the complete bank account details. 3. Whether the lower authorities erred in law and on facts by failing to provide an adjustment for cash withdrawn and deposited from a joint family savings account in Saurashtra Gramin Bank used for agricultural sale and purchase purposes. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee is an agriculturist and the sole source of income is agricultural. Documents supporting agricultural income were provided. - The lower authorities failed to consider debit entries for cash withdrawals and the complete bank account. - Adjustment for cash withdrawn and deposited from a joint family agricultural account was not given. - The assessee requested one more opportunity to explain the case. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh Shah, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Appellant by : Shri Rupesh Shah, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], dated 29.03.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 19.11.2018.

2.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assesse, are as follows:

Dff Sh. Ramnikbhai J. Patel “1. That both the lower authorities have ITO Ward 3 Surendranagar as well as Lrd CIT(NaFAC) Delhi has erred in law and on facts has not appreciated the facts that appellant is agriculturist and never filed his return of Income in past and present only source of Income is agricultural and appellant family having land around 100 bighas and cultivating crop of Fruits, seeds, vegetables and Raw Cotton various documents in support of agricultural income on sale proceeds of Fruits and Raw Cotton deposited and made withdrawal in agricultural loan account with Saurastra Gramin Bank treated as undisclosed source of income and confirm addition under S.68 which otherwise not warranted and required to be deleted in the interest of justice.

2. That both the lower authorities have ITO Ward 3 Surendra Nagar as well as Ld CIT (NFAC) Delhi has erred in law and on facts has looked at only the credit entries of the bank for cash deposited and never looked the debit entries for cash withdrawal and passed assessment made u/s 144. The assessment framed is vague without looking at the complete bank of the assessee.

3. That both the lower authorities have ITO Ward 3 Surendra Nagar as well as Ld CIT (NFAC) Delhi has erred in law and on facts has not given adjustment of cash withdrawn and deposited from Saurashtra Gramin Saving Bank account joint account of family for agricultural sale and purchase purpose.

4.

That this appeal is late more than one year may be Condon in the interest of justice looking to the facts of the case narrated in the affidavit 5. That your appellant reserve right to amend/ alter/ modify any ground or grounds during the pendency of the appeal.”

3.

Brief facts of the case that the assessee has made time deposit of Rs. 12,10,000 in Saurashtra Gramin Bank. The case for A.Y. 2013-14 was reopened after recording reason and getting prior approval from the competent authority. Notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act was issued on 26.03.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. As per the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, the assessee was required to file his return of income within 30 days of service of notice. However, the assessee did not respond to the above said notice issued u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act nor filed any return of income till date. During the course of assessment proceedings, several notices were issued to the assessee along with questionary but nobody responded to the said notices. However, on the stipulated date neither assessee nor his authorised representative submitted any details. As per details available on records and on verification of bank statements provided by the bank, assessee a savings accounts in Saurashtra Page 2 of 5 Dff Sh. Ramnikbhai J. Patel Gramin Bank. On verification of bank account statement, Ld. AO noticed that during F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 12,10,000/- in the bank account. The assessee also had deposit of Rs 63.097/- other than cash, ample opportunities of being heard were provided to the assessee. But the assessee did not explain the nature and source of amount deposited in bank accounts, with supporting evidences in time Therefore, the assessee was requested to show cause as to why your assessment should not be completed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act on the basis of material available on record, neither assessee nor his authorized representative submitted any written reply. It is specifically mentioned in the show cause notice that if the assessee failed comply with the show cause notice, the assessment shall be finalized on merits. Looking to the non compliance from the assessee's side, it will be presumed that the assessee has nothing to offer any explanation. As the assessment proceedings is getting barred by limitation and the assessee did not comply of any of notices issued to assessee, the undersigned left with no other alternative but to finalize the assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 144 of the I.T.Act on the basis of material available on record. That the assessment was completed within the addition of Rs. 12,73,097/- has unexplained cash deposited in S.B. Account u/s. 69 of the Act.

4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AO dated 19.11.2018, before the Ld.CIT(A). that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows: “6.2. Though the appellant claims that the AO was not justified in making such assessment, he never put forth any reasons for claiming so. Even during current appellant proceedings, the appellant never came forward with his explanation to the grounds mentioned by the appellant despite being offered number of opportunities through hearing notices issued by this office. The onus lies on the appellant to prove his case before seeking relief in the appellate proceedings. On this front, appellant miserably failed. In these circumstances, it is deemed fit not to interfere with the assessment made by the AO. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is upheld and grounds are dismissed.

5.

That the assessee is in appeal against the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 of the Ld.CIT(A), before this Tribunal. 5.1. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assesse submitted that one more opportunity mas kindly be given to the assessee to explain the case before the lower authorities. 5.2. On the other hand, the Ld.DR for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the notices have been issued by the Ld.CIT(A) to submit the documents in support of the case. Since, the appellant did not comply with terms of notice. We further note that the assessee has not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. AO. We note that the assessee has not gave due care and attention to the case and negligent in pursuing the case before the AO as well as Ld.CIT(A). for this non-cooperative attitude in pursuing the case. We direct the asessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, and the same is to be deposited with Prime Minster Relief fund (Government of India), within 10 days from today, and the receipt is to be submitted with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Keeping in view, and in the interest of justice, we grant an opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the AO. We set aside the order of lower authority and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard., in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is allowed for statistical purpose. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18/12/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →