SANJAY JAYANTIBHAI PATEL ,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , GANDHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1439/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 December 2024AY 2020-21Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the generation of agricultural income needed to be examined by the revenue authorities. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a proper examination of the agricultural operations and income.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 64,68,426, which was later corrected to Rs. 20,00,000. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 64,68,426 under Section 68. The assessee appealed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural income claimed by the assessee was genuine and properly substantiated, and whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AR
Hearing: 03.12.2024Pronounced: 03.12.2024

(Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Jayantibhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot Block No. 257, Palki Ward-1, National Highway No. 8, Gandhinagar Lawalpura, Dist. Gandhinagar, Gujarat-382321 [PAN : AIRPP 6262 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M.K. Patel, AR Respondent by: Adjournment application filed Date of Hearing 03.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2024 O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT :

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 14.06.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

2.

The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.64,68,426/- made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of agricultural income.

Sanjay Jayantibhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC ought to have considered and accepted the fact that the agricultural income was shown by mistake and bonafide Rs. 64,68,426/- instead agricultural income of error of of CA at the correct Rs.20,00,000/- as explained in appellate proceedings.”

3.

The Revenue filed adjournment.

4.

In this case, the issue pertains to examination of agricultural income of Rs.64,68,426/- filed by the assessee in the return of income which the assessee later claimed as Rs.20,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, making addition of 64,68,426/- u/s 68 of the Act. We find that the factum of “generation of agricultural income” needs to be examined which the Revenue Authorities have not gone in for. The ld. Counsel pleaded that he has all the evidences to support to the earning of agricultural income and the bank statements to substantiate the amended agricultural income. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine the “Agricultural Operations undertaken by the assessee and the Generation of agricultural income”.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →