BHURAMAL TANTED,SAILANA, RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, RATLAM, RATLAM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.10.2023 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi both for the Assessment Year 2017-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC (‘ the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC’) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.17,89,000/- made by the Ld. Income Tax Officer-2, Ratlam (‘the Ld. Assessing Officer’) without Bhuramal Tanted considering the facts of the case. Thus, the addition of Rs.17,89,000/- is liable to be deleted.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and the Ld.AO have erred in not appreciating that the assessee is a Kisan (Agriculturist) and cash has been deposited out of accumulated and agriculture income of the assessee who was aged 93 years during the relevant Assessment Year 2017-18 and residing in rural area. Thus, the addition of Rs.17,89,000/- made without considering the facts and circumstances of the case is liable to be deleted.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the.AO has erred in making addition of Rs.17,89,000/- without appreciating that amount of Rs.17,89,000/- is very reasonable considering the facts and situation of the assessee who is a Kisan (Agriculturist) aged 93 years residing in rural area of village Sailana. Thus, the addition of Rs.17,89,000/- is liable to be deleted.

2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR submitted that Ld. A.O has passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act whereby the addition of Rs.17,89,000/- has been made on account of unexplained deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee. The Ld. AR has further submitted that the assessee filed the submissions before Ld. CIT(A) along with supporting evidences comprising of land holding record of the assessee to show the agriculture income as source of deposits in the bank account. Apart from the land holding and revenue record the bank account statements were also Bhuramal Tanted filed before Ld. CIT(A) however, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Ld. A.O on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences in support of his claim. The Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the fact as the assessee produced all relevant supporting evidences alongwith written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) but he failed to consider the said documentary evidences while passing the impugned order. He has referred to the paper book running into 35 pages and submitted that the written submissions alongwith the other supporting evidences were duly filed before Ld. CIT(A) but the same has not been considered. Therefore the Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Ld. A.O for fresh adjudication after considering the explanation of the assessee as well as supporting evidences.

3. On the other hand Ld. DR has not seriously opposed the prayer of the assessee for remanding the matter to the record of the jurisdictional A.O for fresh adjudication.

4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,96,040/-. In the scrutiny assessment the case was taken up to verify the large cash deposited during the demonetization period. Since there was no reply on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued by the Ld. A.O therefore, he proceeded to frame the assessment on best judgment basis u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act and made the addition of entire deposit of Rs.17,89,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Ld. A.O in para 7 and 8 as under:-

Bhuramal Tanted However, it is seen that the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of his claims. In the absence of any documentary evidence to proof his claim, the genuineness of his claims cannot be verified. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant has failed explain the source of cash deposits and the Assessing Officer has rightly treated it as unexplained money u/s 69A. The case laws cited supra by the appellant are also considered distinguishable from the case of the appellant.

are hereby dismissed.

5. Thus it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that he has carefully considered the submissions of the assessee but the addition was confirmed on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The assessee has produced before us the supporting evidences comprising of the agricultural land holding, revenue record, bank account statements which were stated to be filed alongwith written submissions before Ld. CIT(A). Since the evidence which are placed in the paper book have not been considered by the authorities below therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a proper verification and examination of the relevant record and evidences produced by the assessee at the level of the Ld. A.O. Accordingly the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of jurisdictional Ld. A.O for fresh adjudication after considering the explanation of the assessee as well as verification and examination of the relevant evidences filed by the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2024.