SHRI PRAMODBHAI BHIKUBHAI DESAI,VALSAD vs. I.T.O WARD -7, VAPI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 510/SRT/2025Status: HeardITAT Surat21 January 2026AY 2011-12Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Vice President), MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided details of payments for the use of agricultural land and evidence of agricultural produce sold on cash basis. As these were not disputed by the revenue authorities, no addition was called for.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in agricultural activities, had cash deposits of Rs. 25,81,231/- added by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 21,30,000/-.

What were the issues?

Validity of addition on account of cash deposits when supported by evidence of agricultural income and produce sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 08-04-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee is engaged in the agricultural activities. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 25,81,231/- related to cash deposits. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee thereby confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 21,30,000/-. The source of the cash deposited through agricultural income shown before the A.O. as well as before the CIT(A). In fact, the assessee has given the details of payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was related to the use of agricultural land by Shri Ashwin B. Desai. Beside this, the assessee has also given Pramodbhai Bhikhubhai Desai Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– the details as relates to agricultural produce which was sold on cash basis. Since all the evidence are available on record, produced before the revenue authorities and evidences were not disputed by the authorities, we hold that no addition is called for. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed. order is pronounced in the open Court on 21.01.2026

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →