SHIRISH DIGAMBARRAO DESHPANDE (HUF),PARBHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD HINGOLI, PARBHANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 110/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee could adequately prove their claimed agricultural expenditure nor the lower appellate authority could justify the 35% re-computation. Therefore, the addition was re-computed to a lump sum of Rs. 6 lakhs.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 11,88,625/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits. The addition was based on re-computation of agricultural expenses at 35% of agricultural income, reducing the assessee's claimed expenditure.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of the addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and the justification for the re-computation of agricultural expenses. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1) was also challenged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 18.03.2024Pronounced: 10.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 18.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1058230321(1), dated 24.11.2023, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition of 2 ITA.No.110/PUN./2024

Rs.11.88.625/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the fact that the appellant was not maintaining any books of accounts.

Hence addition under section 68 r.ws 115BBE is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to ground-1above, on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

Assessing Officer has erred in considering the agriculture expenses on adhoc basis of 35% of the agriculture income without any basis. Hence the addition is liable to be deleted.

3.

On the basis of facts and circumstance of the case and in law. the Ld, AO was not justified in initiating penalty

proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the income tax

Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, and alter any or withdraw any grounds of appeal al or before the time of appeal hearing.”

3. Mr. Mehta vehemently supported both the learned lower authorities action making unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.11,88,625/- after subjecting it’s alleged agricultural receipts of Rs.35,27,995/- to re-computation of exigency thereupon @ 35%; thereby reducing the expenditure claim of Rs.18,39,370/- in very terms coming to Rs.11,88,625/-. It is this impugned addition which stands

3 ITA.No.110/PUN./2024 upheld in the learned NFAC’s detailed discussion thereby rejecting the assessee’s arguments.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands. I find no merit to express my agreement with either parties vehement submissions in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessee could prove the impugned agricultural expenditure @ 21.26% by filing all the relevant supportive evidence nor the learned NFAC have been able to justify thereof @ 35% of the gross receipts (supra). That being the case, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to re-compute the impugned addition of Rs.11,88,625/- to a lump sum amount of Rs.6 lakhs only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in other case(s). The assessee gets relief of Rs.5,88,625/- in otherwords. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →