RANAJITBHAI BALVANTBHAI PATEL,OLPAD vs. ITO - WARD 2(2)(4), MAJURA GATE

Order Under Section 254(1) of Income tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBR: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] / Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 22.09.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the appeal u/s 249(4) when no tax was payable as advance tax.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs.13,69,000/- being cash deposits made during the demonetization period in the bank accounts of the assesse as unexplained u/s. 69A of the Act.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs.8,000/- being cash deposits made during the period other than demonetization period in the bank accounts of the assesse as unexplained u/s. 69A of the Act.

ITA. 646/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Ranajitbhai Balvantbhai Patel

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs.10,42,036/- being other credits in the bank accounts of the assesse as unexplained u/s. 69A of the Act.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in taxing the addition by taking the rate @ 77.25% by attracting S. 115BBE instead of normal tax rate. 6. It is therefore prayed that above additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Rival submissions of the parties heard and record perused. The learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine by taking view that assessee was required to pay an amount equal to amount of advance tax, which was payable. And that the assessee has not paid advance tax, while filing the appeal before him/ld. NFAC, therefore appeal is not liable to be admitted as per provision of section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee purely an agriculturist. The assessee has no other source of income except agricultural income. The case of assessee was reopened for the reasons that assessee made cash deposits in his bank accounts during demonetization period with Syndicate Bank. The firm stand of assessee right from the beginning is that he is not liable to pay any tax as he has no other source of income, except agricultural income. The assessee has not filed return of income, although the assessee was filing return of income regularly from AY.2014-15 and 2016-17 and as shown certain agricultural income, below the taxable limit which was accepted by Department without any variation. The ld. AR further submits 2 ITA. 646/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Ranajitbhai Balvantbhai Patel that during the pendency of appeal before ld. CIT(A), issued a deficiency letter/show cause notice to the assessee that tax on return income was not paid/particulars of payment not mentioned. In response to such deficiency letter, the assessee filed his reply dated 19.11.2022, the acknowledgement of such reply is filed of page no.2 of the paper book. Copy of reply is filed on page no.3 of paper book. In reply, the assessee duly explained the assessee is purely an agriculturist and have no other source of income, so assessee is not liable to file return of income, hence no question of mentioning tax on return income, not paid. The reply of assessee was enabled by ld. CIT(A). Again vide show cause notice/clarification dated 15.09.2023, similar objection was raised. The assessee again vide reply dated 15.09.2023, repeated the similar contention that assessee is not liable to file return of income for the year under consideration, therefore there is no question of mentioning tax on returned income, not paid. The ld. AR of the assessee invited my attention on column no.8 and 9 of Form No. 35, wherein the assessee in both the columns has clearly mentioned “No” against the details; whether the tax due on the income returned has been paid in full and/or where no income tax return filed by the assessee whether amount equal to an advance tax as Section 249(b) has been paid.