SHRI KAMLESHKUMAR VALLABHBHAI CHANCHDIA,VILLAGE SARDHAR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT

Grounds of appeal raised by the assesse, are as follows: “[1] The grounds raised in this appeal are without prejudice to one another. [2] The learned Income Tax Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 11,00,000 to the returned income of the assesse and the learned CIT [appeals] erred in law and on facts in retaining the same in the order under appeal. On the facts and Kamleshkumar V. Chanchdla circumstances of the case it is respectfully submitted that the cash was fully explained/explainable and no addition on that count deserved to be made. [3] The grounds on the basis of which the addition has been made in assessment of the order and has been retained in the appeal order are factually incorrect and not in accordance with law and the addition made deserves to be deleted. [4] In respect of notices of hearing as stated in Para 4 of the appeal order the assesse respectfully submits that he had asked for the adjournment in respect of the following dates of hearing: a) Date of Adjournment-22/07/2021, hearing fixed on 23/07/2021 It is respectfully submitted that the assesse is a small trader, stays in a village of sardhar and had no knowledge of accounts and intricacies of tax laws, he has no permanent accountant or any staff and therefore the details could not be furnished in the course of first appeal proceedings; but the assesse is serious in the matter of proceedings; therefore it is prayed that the additional evidences as may be furnished in the course of hearing of this appeal before the Honorable bench may kindly be admitted as such. [5] The Learned Income Tax Officer erred in charging interest under the various provisions of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A) eared in upholding the same. The same deserves to be deleted.”

Brief facts of the case that the assessee has e-filed his return of income on 16/06/2016 declaring therein total income of Rs. 1,51,440/-. Thereafter, assessee revised the return of Income on 30/03/2017 declaring therein total income of Rs. 2,87,050/- and also shown exempt income of Agriculture of Rs.2,89,791/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS in LIMITED scrutiny with a reason of Whether revision of return is justified". Accordingly, a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.07.2017 and duly served upon the assessee, hearing Fixed on no. Further, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act, calling for various details were issued. The assessee has reported cash on hand of Rs. 2,63,300/- in original ROI and Rs. 15,15,142/- in revised ROI. The difference comes to Rs. 12,51,842/-. In order to explain the difference, the assessee has submitted a copy of day book of M/s Mahadev Trading with the a closing balance of Rs. 12,51,842 which, as per the assessee, was missed at the time of filing original ROI and later on it was incorporated in the revised ROI. In absence of any proof of sale of agricultural produce or any land holding Page 2 of 4 Kamleshkumar V. Chanchdla documents, the claim of assessee regarding agricultural income cannot be accepted. Therefore, the same is being added as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The AO computed total income of the assessee is as under:

That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AO, before the Ld.CIT(A). that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows: “The appellant has requested to allow adding or amending any ground of appeal

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is allowed for statistical purpose.