HANSA GIRISH SHAH,THANE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions. r appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions. r appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. raising grounds as reproduced above.

4.1 Before us, the Ld. , the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitte for the assessee submitted that addition u/s 68 of the Act is not justified because source of the addition u/s 68 of the Act is not justified because source of the addition u/s 68 of the Act is not justified because source of the receipt was duly explained receipt was duly explained. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that further submitted that yield of the production of the agricultural produce in the case of the yield of the production of the agricultural produce in the case of the yield of the production of the agricultural produce in the case of the assessee is better as compare assessee is better as compared to the others because of the because of the Hansa Girish Shah 4 ITA No. 3303/M/2023 personal attention being paid by him. He further also submitted personal attention being paid by him. He further also submitted personal attention being paid by him. He further also submitted that the agriculture produce produce sold by assessee also included produce assessee also included produce out of the production out of the production for last year production and therefore, no year production and therefore, no addition is justified.

4.2 We have heard ri We have heard rival submission and perused the relevant val submission and perused the relevant material on record. We find that in response to We find that in response to query of query of Assessing Officer query it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee Officer query it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee Officer query it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee owned 6.5 acres of the agriculture land at Village Vanoi in Kutch 6.5 acres of the agriculture land at Village Vanoi in Kutch 6.5 acres of the agriculture land at Village Vanoi in Kutch District Gujarat. On this agriculture land, the assessee had On this agriculture land, the assessee had On this agriculture land, the assessee had produced ‘castor’, ‘gawar gawar’ and other crops during the year. It was and other crops during the year. It was submitted that assessee employed a caretaker to submitted that assessee employed a caretaker to whom whom 20% of the agricultural product was given. The assessee submitted the she had agricultural product was given. The assessee submitted the she had agricultural product was given. The assessee submitted the she had sold castor seeds of 22,975 of 22,975 kgs and has earned her share of income kgs and has earned her share of income at Rs. 8,70,315/-. In support, sales bills of the agricultural produce . In support, sales bills of the agricultural produce . In support, sales bills of the agricultural produce sold by the assessee assessee were submitted during the assessment during the assessment proceedings. However, the proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer referred to the yield per Officer referred to the yield per acre for castor seed productivity in Kutch District, which was productivity in Kutch District, which was productivity in Kutch District, which was 235 kg per acre. Whereas the yield shown by the assessee was 4,415 kg kg per acre. Whereas the yield shown by the assessee was 4,415 kg kg per acre. Whereas the yield shown by the assessee was 4,415 kg per acre and therefore, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to per acre and therefore, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to per acre and therefore, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain and justify the high productivity but no explanation was explain and justify the high productivity but no explanati explain and justify the high productivity but no explanati submitted by the assessee except that agricultural produce sold submitted by the assessee except that agricultural produce sold submitted by the assessee except that agricultural produce sold might also include the production from the adjoining land by her might also include the production from the adjoining land by her might also include the production from the adjoining land by her husband and therefore, the Assessing Officer husband and therefore, the Assessing Officer estimated estimated production in the case of the assessee at 3280 kg and which was valued at in the case of the assessee at 3280 kg and which was v in the case of the assessee at 3280 kg and which was v

Hansa Girish Shah 5 ITA No. 3303/M/2023 Rs.1,24,246/-. After giving benefit for the amount of Rs.1,24,246/ . After giving benefit for the amount of Rs.1,24,246/- . After giving benefit for the amount of Rs.1,24,246/ he made addition for balance amount of Rs.6,93,069/- out of he made addition for balance amount of Rs.6,93,069/ he made addition for balance amount of Rs.6,93,069/ agriculture of Rs.8,17,315/ agriculture of Rs.8,17,315/- shown by the assessee. shown by the assessee.

4.3 We have also examined the average agricultural income of the We have also examined the average agricultural income of the We have also examined the average agricultural income of the assessee in earlier years submitted by the ld Counsel for the assessee in earlier years submitted by the ld Counsel for the assessee in earlier years submitted by the ld Counsel for the assessee for explanation of cash deposit in banks, which is in the assessee for explanation of cash deposit in banks, which is in the assessee for explanation of cash deposit in banks, which is in the range of Rs. 3-4 lakhs, and therefore, income of Rs more than 8.00 4 lakhs, and therefore, income of Rs more than 8.00 4 lakhs, and therefore, income of Rs more than 8.00 lakhs need supporting evidences. In the facts of case, we are of the lakhs need supporting evidences. In the facts of case, w lakhs need supporting evidences. In the facts of case, w opinion that since, the Assessing Officer has decided the issue on opinion that since, the Assessing Officer has decided the opinion that since, the Assessing Officer has decided the the crop yield of castor available in public domain the crop yield of castor available in public domain but the assessee but the assessee could not substantiate its yield by way of any documentary could not substantiate its yield by way of any documentary could not substantiate its yield by way of any documentary evidence. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to rest evidence. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back ore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, f file of the Assessing Officer, for ascertaining the yield in the case of the assessee from any expe se of the assessee from any expert in the field of field of agriculture and thereafter may decide the issue in accordance with law after thereafter may decide the issue in accordance with law thereafter may decide the issue in accordance with law providing opportunity f being hear providing opportunity f being heard. The ground No. 1 No. 1 of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Hansa Girish Shah 6 ITA No. 3303/M/2023 of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the cash of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the cash of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the cash agricultural income of the assessee i of the assessee in the light of the crop yield and n the light of the crop yield and the expenditure incurred if any by the assessee on the household or the expenditure incurred if any by the assessee on the househol the expenditure incurred if any by the assessee on the househol otherwise and then determine the availability of cash in the hand of otherwise and then determine the availability of cash in the hand of otherwise and then determine the availability of cash in the hand of the assessee for justifying the cash deposit. The ground No. 2 of the the assessee for justifying the cash deposit. The ground No. 2 of the the assessee for justifying the cash deposit. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.