RAJENDRA KUMAR PATIDAR,C/O. CA. RAJESH HEERALAL MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, IRRIGATION COLONY
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, इंदौर �यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.505/Ind/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Rajendra Kumar Patidar, Income Tax Officer, 203, Manas Bhawan Extn, Shajapur 11, RNT Marg, Vs. Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AQLPP9145L Assessee by S/Shri Apurva Mehta and Rajesh Mehta, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R
This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated
22.07.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ujjain for
A.Y.2009-10 which is arising from the assessment order u/s
144/147) of the Act dated 27.10.2016 framed by ITO, Shajapur.
Registry has informed that there is a delay of 1173 days in
filing of the instant appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring
to the affidavit for condonation of delay submitted that the
ITA No.505/Ind/2023 Rajendra Kumar Patidar impugned order was framed on 22.07.2020 and at that point of
time whole country was passing through Covid pandemic. Hon’ble
Apex Court extended the limitation period up to May, 2022. So
almost 2 years delay is attributable to covid restrictions. He further
submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and residing in a
remote village. He came to know about the impugned order only
when his bank account held with Canara Bank, Shajapur was
attached for which notice was received on 13.10.2023. Immediately
thereafter assessee approached the consultant for legal aid and
filed the appeal. Prayer made to condone the delay. On the other
hand Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the request. I
however considering the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for
condonation of delay more particularly the covid restrictions during
2020-2022 period and also considering the fact that the assessee is
an agriculturist and is not conversant with the new technical
advancement of communicating orders by e-mail and also to impart
fair justice, condone the delay and admit the appeal for
adjudication.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
ITA No.505/Ind/2023 Rajendra Kumar Patidar “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 1.d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ujjain ("the Ld. CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,41,500/- made by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Shajapur ('the Ld. AO") by treating the same as unaccounted income without considering that the assessee is a Kisan (Agriculturist) and the cash is deposited out of agricultural income and there is no unaccounted income of the assessee
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 1.d. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in not appreciating the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee before the 1.d. CIT(A) in the form of additional evidences to substantiate the claim of agricultural income earned by the assessee.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue on merits of the case and thus, the Order of the 1.d. CIT(A) is liable to be quashed.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in stating that no documentary evidences have been filed by the appellant without appreciating that assessee has submitted bank statement of Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank, Samagra ID of entire joint family, Rin Pustika of agricultural land held by the assessee, BI-PII (land revenue records), copy of bills relating to sale of agriculture were submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the Order of the 1.d. CIT(A) is liable to be quashed and the addition made by the L.d. AO of Rs. 12,41,500/-is liable to be deleted.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO has erred in not considering that there are various cash withdrawals of the assessee relating to agricultural activities and thus, entire cash deposited cannot be treated as income without considering the cash withdrawals made by the assessee. Thus, the addition of Rs. 12,41,500/- made by the Ld. AO is liable to be deleted.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual
and claiming to be an agriculturist did not file any return of
income for Assessment Year 2009-10. On the basis of the
ITA No.505/Ind/2023 Rajendra Kumar Patidar information received from AIR Ld. A.O observed that the assessee
has deposited Rs.12,41,500/- in his savings bank account. To
examine this issue Ld. A.O issued notice u/s 148 of the Act to
carryout reassessment proceedings but there was no compliance
from the assessee’s side. Ld.A.O proceeded to frame best judgment
assessment u/s 144 of the Act and made addition for undisclosed
income of Rs.12,41,500/- and assessed the income at the said
amount.
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)
challenging the impugned addition. He submitted that the assessee
owns 12 bigha of irrigated agriculture land and grows wheat,
chana, soya cereals etc. and sold agriculture produce in the local
mandi for which receipts were duly received. It was claimed that
sale proceeds have been utilized for depositing in the bank account.
Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee
and directed Ld. A.O to file a remand report. However in the
remand report Ld.A.O discussed about non appearance of the
assessee but failed to note the details of agriculture income filed by
the assessee. In the rebuttal to remand report assessee again
referred to agriculture income. However Ld.CIT(A) without making
ITA No.505/Ind/2023 Rajendra Kumar Patidar any discussion about the details filed by the assessee and the same
being the source to deposit the alleged cash confirmed the addition
observing as follows:
“6. I have gone through the facts of the case as well as arguments taken on behalf of the appellant. It is observed that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 12,41,500/- in his savings bank account during the year. During the assessment proceedings no submission was made. In the course of appellate proceedings, it was argued that the source of cash deposit is out of agricultural income. It is seen that even during the remand processing no direct evidence was filed in support of earning of agricultural income. The AO therefore has reported that the addition made during the assessment requires to be retained. 7. I have considered the facts and I am of the opinion that in the case of agricultural income onus lies with the assessee to prove with supporting evidences, which the appellant has failed to do. I therefore confirm the addition made by the AO of Rs. 12,41,500/-. “ 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld.
Counsel for the assessee has filed paper book containing 32 pages
and index of the paper book indicates the details filed by the
assessee before the lower authorities.
S.No. Particulars Page Available before No. CIT(A) AO 1 Appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A), 1-6 Yes - Ujjain dated 2 Assessment order u/s 144/147 7-9 Yes Yes of the Act dated 27.10.2016 3 Notice of demand u/s 156 of the 10-12 Yes Yes Act alongwith computation sheet dated 27.10.2016 4 Reply dated 04.02.2020 filed 13 Yes - before the Ld. CIT(A), Ujjain 5 Reply dated 04.02.2020 filed 14-15 Yes Yes
ITA No.505/Ind/2023 Rajendra Kumar Patidar before the Ld. CIT(A), Ujjain 6 Bank statement for the FY 2008- 16-17 Yes Yes 09 7 Rin Pustika 18-21 Yes Yes 8 BI-P II of Agriculture land 22-25 Yes Yes 9 Sample copies of bills of 26-31 Yes Yes agriculture produce sold 10 Aadhaar Card of the assessee 32 Yes Yes
6.1 Referring to the details placed in the paper book Ld. Counsel
for the assessee has submitted that the assessee owns agriculture
land and the Rin Pustika (P.B page 18-21) states about various
types of vegetables and pulses grown by the assessee and further
referred to the mandi receipts/commission agent receipts of various
agriculture produce sold during the year under consideration. He
has stated that the only source of income of the assessee is from
the agriculture produce and the same were deposited in cash. He
also submitted that there are regular cash withdrawals and the
peak bank credit is Rs.6,01,057/- and that too from sale of
agriculture produce. He has prayed that the impugned addition
may be deleted.
6.2 On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative
supported the orders of both the lower authorities and stated that
the assessee had not filed the details of agriculture activity carried 6
ITA No.505/Ind/2023 Rajendra Kumar Patidar out, details of product wise sales and incidental expenses incurred
for agriculture activity. In the absence of these details general
submissions of the assessee should not be accepted.
I have heard rival submissions and perused the records placed
before me. Though the assessee has raised 5 grounds of appeal but
the sole grievance is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the
addition of Rs.12,41,500/- made by the Ld. A.O for unexplained
cash deposit. I observe that the assessee resides at village Haripur
Teka, Shajapur and is a agriculturist. Since his only source of
income is from agriculture he is not filing Income Tax return.
However even the farmers also maintains bank account and same
is the case with the assessee. He holds bank account at Narmada
Jabhua Gramin Bank and during the year under consideration he
deposited cash on various dates totaling to Rs.12,41,500/-. Entries
of the bank statement (P.B 16-17) indicates that apart from the
cash deposit and cash withdrawals the assessee has also taken
loan for warehouse purposes on 29.8.2008. I also notice that the
peak bank balance is only Rs.601057/- which includes some
portion of the warehousing loan of 3 lakh received on 29.8.2008
and Rs.2,60,000/-on 23.10.2008. I also observe that the assessee
ITA No.505/Ind/2023 Rajendra Kumar Patidar owns 12 bigha of agriculture land which is fully irrigated and this
fact is not disputed by the revenue authorities. Proof of ownership
of agriculture land is placed at page 8-21 of the paper book.
Further page 22-25 of Rin Pustika copies provides the detail of the
land owner, name of agriculture produced and the total area in
which such produce is grown and detail of land being kept as
collateral security with the bank. Perusal of the Rin Pustika clearly
indicates that the assessee has grown chilli, soyabean and other
vegetables. Further sample copies of agriculture produce and sale
receipts are placed at page 26 to 31 of the paper book. For
Example on 24.01.2009 assessee sold soyabean for a consideration
of Rs.2,47,500/- on 25.01.2009 again soyabean sold at
Rs.2,52,000/- through M/s Raja Trading Company. On 5.08.2008
agriculture produce has been sold for Rs.3,06,000/- and so on.
7.1 On an overall analysis of the above stated facts I find that the
assessee is an agriculturist and is carrying out agriculture activity
on his irrigated agriculture land. I also find that during the year
under consideration he sold agriculture produce and the same has
been utilized for depositing the alleged amount of cash in the bank
account on various dates. Thus the assessee has successfully
ITA No.505/Ind/2023 Rajendra Kumar Patidar explained the source of alleged cash deposit. Therefore the finding
of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and impugned addition of Rs.12,41,500/-
made by the A.O is hereby deleted. All the grounds of appeal raised
by the assessee are allowed.
In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2024.
Sd/-
(MANISH BORAD) Accountant Member
Indore,_ 06.08.2024 Dev/Sr. PS
Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
