KAMLESHKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL PATEL,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD 2, VALSAD
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
- Delay condoned.
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-
“The Ld. CIT(A) has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.66,52,171/- on A/c of Agriculture Income. Wrongly declared for typographic mistake.”
The pertinent facts required for adjudication of this case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under Kamleshkumar Dhansukhlal Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2–
consideration on 21.01.2021, declaring total income at Rs.73,000/- and agricultural income of Rs.67,91,924/-. The case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ under CASS on the issue of “Agricultural Income’. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and the show-cause notice issued u/s 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.67,25,171/-, making an addition of Rs.66,52,171/- as unexplained income u/s 69 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that actual agricultural income was Rs.6,91,924/-, and the higher figure was a typographical error in the return. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the claim of the assessee, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), holding that the claim could not be entertained without a revised return.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. AR, before us, submitted that the addition of Rs.66,52,171/- is a result of clerical/typographical error. The Ld. AR submitted that the net agricultural income for the period AY 2015-16 to 2020-21 ranged between Rs.3 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3–
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The assessee before us has been engaged in agricultural activity for several years. The net agricultural income of the assessee for the preceding five years was as under:-
Assessment Year Net Agriculture Income Earned 2015-16 3,52,100/- 2016-17 3,29,500/- 2017-18 3,59,717/- 2018-19 3,88,940/- 2019-20 6,69,504/-
These facts were not disputed by the Revenue. It is evident that the assessee consistently earned agricultural income between Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs in prior years. The sudden declaration of Rs.67,91,924/- in AY 2020-21 is obviously a typographical error, supported by the historical trend and the explanation provided by the assessee.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the addition of Rs.66,52,171/- by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unwarranted. The agricultural income for AY 2020-21 is to be read as Rs.6,91,924/-, and total income revised accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 17/02/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 4–
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण /DR,ITAT, Surat, , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.
