Jigar Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The case of Jigar Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) pertains to an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. The core issue revolves around the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 1,77,16,980/- made by the Income Tax Officer (Assessment Unit) as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and taxed at 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act.
The assessee had filed a return of income for A.Y. 2020-21, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,750/- and claiming an exempt agricultural income of Rs. 1,21,19,751/-. The assessee stated they were engaged in agricultural activities and also earned rent income, in addition to being a Director in four private limited companies. The case was selected for limited scrutiny based on the declared agricultural income (non-business ITR) and a large cash deposit compared to the returned income. Following the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) made the full addition of Rs. 1,77,16,980/- as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming the addition.
During the proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the assessee’s Authorized Representative (AR) argued that both the AO and the CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence submitted by the assessee, specifically mentioning the evidence of agricultural income and the related receipts mentioned on page no. 4 of the Assessment Order. The AR also referred to a similar ITAT order in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2017-18, where the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). The ITAT noted that neither of the lower authorities had properly considered the evidences, including those related to agricultural income and corresponding receipts. Given the need for verification of these submissions, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences and to decide the issue in accordance with the law, ensuring the assessee is granted an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
