DIPIKABEN ALPESHKUMAR PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ALPESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAND

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed for A.Y. 2013-14.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

Before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised two grounds of appeal, with the first ground challenging the addition of Rs. 16,82,000/-. Ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposits despite being given multiple opportunities to present evidence and explanations. Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee has not been able to discharge the burden of proof which was on the assessee, to explain the source and nature of any unexplained income, and the Dipikaben Alpeshkumar Patel (L/h. of Late Alpeshkumar Jagadishbhai Patel) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2013-14 - 3– assessee failed to discharge this responsibility. Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence or satisfactory explanations regarding the source of the cash deposits. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's decision to treat the cash deposits as unexplained income, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is an individual who filed a return of income under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, declaring income from other sources amounting to Rs. 1,611/- and agricultural income of Rs. 10,42,940/-. The Tax Authorities issued a notice to the assessee, requesting an explanation for a cash deposit of Rs. 16,82,000/- in his bank account during the relevant year. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the bank account in question, with the Central Bank of India in Khambhloj, was jointly held with his father and other family members. The Counsel for the assessee that though the notice mentioned a total cash deposit of Rs. 16,82,000/- in this account, but the assessee provided evidence that the actual cash deposit was only Rs. 1,05,000/-. The deposits were made on two separate occasions: Rs. 50,000/- on 06/05/2012 and Rs. 55,000/- on 07/07/2012. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the source of these deposits was withdrawals made from the same bank account and income from agricultural activities, primarily from cultivation of tobacco and bananas. The assessee also mentioned that the family owned around 15 vighas of agricultural land in Khambhloj. In summary, the Counsel for the assessee Dipikaben Alpeshkumar Patel (L/h. of Late Alpeshkumar Jagadishbhai Patel) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2013-14 - 4– reiterated that the true and correct amount of the cash deposit was Rs. 1,05,000/- and not Rs. 16,82,000/-, and this deposit was sourced from agricultural income and bank withdrawals the Counsel for the assessee also submitted a summary of their bank account with the Central Bank of India (Account No. 2123796665), including the opening balance, cash deposits, transfer from family fixed deposits, and other relevant details.

In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the respective orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

On going through the summary of bank account details furnished by the Counsel for the assessee (the contents of which were also not disputed by the Ld. DR), it is observed that there were cash withdrawals to the tune of Rs.12,02,000/- from the same bank account during the year under consideration. We also observe that the assessee had filed return of income declaring agricultural income of Rs.10,42,940/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has also submitted that the said bank account was a joint family bank account in which income from agricultural receipts were deposited. In our considered view, taking into consideration the totality of facts, wherein it is seen that the assessee had itself withdrawn a sum of Rs.12,02,000/- from the same bank account during the year under consideration (and there is no allegation that the said amount was invested / utilized by the assessee for any specific purpose), has declared agricultural income of Rs.10,42,940/- for the year under consideration and also given prima facie evidence of having been engaged in agricultural activities and also taking into consideration the fact that the assessee’s family was in ownership of agricultural land, the assessee has been able to reasonably explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.16,82,000/- in the bank account held by the assessee. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 18/12/2024