PRAGJIBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of opening cash balance was due to a clerical error and unsupported by revenue evidence. Similarly, the cash credit from sundry debtors was found to be business receipts, and the addition under section 50C/43CA was unjustified as the property was stock-in-trade and no evidence of higher sale consideration was produced.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in agricultural land trading and declaring income under section 44AD, faced additions to his income during assessment. These additions pertained to alleged differences in opening cash balance, unexplained cash credit from sundry debtors, and a deemed income under section 50C/43CA.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer for opening cash balance, unexplained cash credit, and deemed income under section 50C/43CA are sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging … (i) addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of alleged difference in opening cash balance, (ii) addition of Rs.6,58,538/- treated as unexplained cash credit received from sundry debtors, and (iii) addition of Rs.2,08,293/- made by invoking section 50C/43CA of the Act.
Pragjibhai Parshotambhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of trading in agricultural land/plots and declared income on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the impugned additions, which were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
As regards the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of difference in opening cash balance, we find that the assessee had explained that the difference arose due to a clerical/typographical error while filing the return of income for the preceding year. The cash balance was sought to be supported by past agricultural and business income. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee has declared income under section 44AD and was not maintaining regular books of account. No material has been brought on record before us by the Revenue to establish that the impugned amount represented unexplained money of the assessee. Therefore, the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- is unsustainable and is directed to be deleted.
With regard to the addition of Rs.6,58,538/- treated as unexplained cash credit, we observe that the amount represents recovery from sundry debtors arising out of business transactions. It was submitted that these amounts also form part of the receipts for computation of profits u/s 44AD of the Act during the year. The explanation of the assessee has not been disproved by the Assessing Officer with any cogent evidence. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.6,58,538/- is also directed to be deleted.
As regards the addition of Rs.2,08,293/- made by the Assessing Officer by applying section 50C/43CA of the Act, we note that the property sold was held as Pragjibhai Parshotambhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3– stock-in-trade and the assessee had already declared income on presumptive basis. Further, the addition has been made merely on the basis of stamp duty valuation without bringing any material on record to show that the assessee had received consideration over and above the stated sale consideration. In such circumstances, the addition is not justified. Hence, the same is directed to be deleted.
In view of the above discussion, all the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026