Case Law Details
Satishbhai Kadvabhai Sarvaiya Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
The case of Satishbhai Kadvabhai Sarvaiya Vs Income Tax Officer (ITO) reached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Rajkot, revolving around a significant cash deposit during the demonetization period.
The appeal stemmed from an order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant, an agriculturist, found themselves in a predicament as the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 10,07,500 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, attributing it to unexplained money.
During the demonetization period, the appellant deposited Rs. 10,00,000 in cash into their bank account. Despite providing details of agricultural income and other supporting documents, including bills for the sale of crops and bank statements, the AO proceeded with the addition.
The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, but dissatisfaction lingered, leading to further adjudication at the ITAT Rajkot. The tribunal scrutinized the evidence and arguments meticulously. It emphasized the appellant’s status as an agriculturist, highlighting the unconventional nature of income documentation in such cases.
The tribunal found the CIT(A)’s confirmation of the addition unjustified, as the appellant had substantiated the source of the deposited amount adequately. Notably, the appellant presented bills for crop sales and maintained provisional accounts, demonstrating a legitimate source for the deposited sum.
The ITAT Rajkot’s decision rested on the principle that during demonetization, deposits, if supported by sufficient explanation, do not warrant addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 07-102022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18.
2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition made of Rs.10,00,000/-. The same needs cancellation.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made without cogent reason or cogent material brought on records. The same needs cancellation.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made without giving proper opportunity and adequately considering the matter. The same needs cancellation.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made on irrelevant consideration. The same needs cancellation.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made on presumption and surmises. The same needs cancellation.
6. Taking into consideration legal, statutory, factual and administrative aspects no addition as made ought to have been confirmed. The same needs cancellation.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that there is error in not giving due deductions while completing assessments. The same needs to be allowed.
8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that there is error in not giving due exemption while completing assessments. The same needs to be allowed.
9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that addition is made without considering peak position and making due inquiry while completing assessments. The same needs to be allowed.
10. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment made being illegal, void, bad in law and against statutory provisions, needs annulment.
11. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the agricultural land belongs to HUF and not to Individual and consequently the deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- also not pertains to the individual. The assessment needs annulment having made in the status of individual being bad in law needs annulment.
12. Without prejudice, The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the initiations of the assessment proceeding is itself beyond limitation as prescribe. The same needs to be quashed.
13. Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. A.O. while completing assessment. The same needs annulment.
14. Without prejudice, there being no legal service of the notice of hearing issued and therefore the assessment needs annulment
15. Without prejudice the LD, CIT(A) has erred in confirming application of rate of tax as applicable U/s 1158BE instead of applying Normal Rate of Tax. The same needs modification.
16. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the Ld. A.O. was not having jurisdiction for making the assessment U/s 144 of the act as such the assessment founded on invalid jurisdiction may kindly be quashed and justice be done.
17. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition U/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act of Rs. 10,00,000/- made, as alleged uncounted money, which may kindly be deleted and justice be done.
18. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all grounds of appeal before the actual hearing takes place.
TOTAL TAX EFFECT Rs. 12,20,000/-”
3. The assessee is an agriculturist and deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash in his bank account on 11-11-2016 during the demonetization period. No return was filed by the assessee, therefore, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued by the Assessing Officer. As no return was filed even in response to this notice and finally assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Act thereby making addition of Rs. 10,07,500/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but the assessee has filed written submission along with certain details of the agricultural income as well as correspondence with the income tax officer i.e. Assessing Officer vide letter dated 07-07-2017 and 17-07-2017. We are taking up the said written submission filed by the assessee as well as those documents on record and proceedings with the matter.
6. The ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not given the details of agricultural produce and has not established the undisclosed cash deposits during the demonetization period and therefore the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition.
7. We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is having a major source of income from agricultural operation as well as income on sale of milk. Being the agriculturist, he is not maintaining regular books but provisional accounts were maintained and the same was submitted before the CIT(A). The finding of the CIT(A) that the assessee deposited a wholesome of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the bank account on 11-11-2016 in cash is not fully explained appears to be not justified as the assessee in his submissions before the CIT(A) has categorically mentioned the bills for sale of crops and also has given the details of the crops such as groundnut, cotton and cultivating vegetables. The assessee has also given the land revenue record as well as the bank statement including professional accounts for earning agricultural income which was not at all considered by the CIT(A) while confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified as the assessee has explained the details of the earning of the amount which was rightly deposited during the demonetization period. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15-03-2024
Author Bio
