SANJAYKUMAR VIRABHAI PATEL,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GODHRA

These two appeals are filed against the order dated 07- 09-2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

The grounds of appeals are as under:- A.Y. 2013-14 & 881/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. 2 Sanjaykumar Virabhai Patel vs. ITO

The assessee did not file return of income for assessment year 2013-14. As per the information available on record, the assessee made cash deposit of RS. 32,85,400/- in saving bank account during financial year 2012-13 (A.Y. 2013-14). The case of the assessee was reopened after recording reasons and notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2021 was issued after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee did not file the return of income. Subsequently, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued. The Assessing Officer observed that in response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 15-02-2022 declaring total income of Rs. 1,89,031/-. The assessee has shown sales of Rs. 32,85,400/- and purchase at Rs. 32,87,144/-. The assessee carried out the business of animal husbandry. The assessee is an agriculturist and dealing with animal husbandry business on no profit and no loss basis. After going the assessee’s submissions dated 18-03-2022, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to explain the & 881/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. 4 Sanjaykumar Virabhai Patel vs. ITO source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 32,85,400/- and therefore made addition of the same amount on account of unexplained cash credits u/s. 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated proceedings u/s. 271A that of penalty proceedings.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and could not file the relevant confirmation letters as well as the credit entries of the collected contribution of the assessee’s villagers which are now available with the assessee including bank statement of HDFC treating profit and loss account, capital account and balance sheet for the relevant assessment years and therefore the matter may be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication of issues on merit.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note & 881/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. 5 Sanjaykumar Virabhai Patel vs. ITO that the assessee could not file evidences including that confirmations of bank statement and trading profit and loss account and profit and loss account, capital account and balance sheet as well as purchase and sales invoices before the Assessing Officer as he was not well versed with the tax proceedings and therefore it will be appropriate to remand back these issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the additional evidences filed before us. The additional evidences is admitted. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify these evidences and adjudicate the same as per tax income tax statutes. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. It is further directed to the assessee that assessee will co-operate before the Assessing Officer. Thus, appeal ITA 880/Ahd/2023 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.