9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee are as follows: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 10,09,859/ on account of alleged unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, while the appellant has properly adhered to every notice and direction of Ld. AO and has fully co-operated during the whole assessment proceedings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying interest u/s. 234 A/B/C/D of the Act. To add further, the AO has also erred in law in levying penalty u/s. 271AAC of the Act. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the case appellant craves for admission of addition evidence in the interest of natural justice and equity. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed her return of income for AY.2017-18 on 07.03.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the year under consideration was neither reflected in cash book nor in the bank account. The assessee had shown Rs. 6,92,062/- in the asset side with narration 'Other assets - Agricultural Income A/c'. The assessee was having agriculture land at B.No.23/2/1, Village - Anida, Taluka - Khambha, Dist. - Amreli, admeasuring area 14300 square meters. The AO estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 2,56,041/- (1.43 X 3581 X 50) and after deducting agricultural expenses @ 40%, net income was calculated at Rs. 1,53,625/-. Since the net agricultural income of Rs. 1,32,825/- was declared in the return of income, the AO determined the agriculture income at Rs. 2,00,000/- each for AY.2016-17 and 2017-18. The differential amounts of Rs. 5,17,797/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract 7/12 and 8A and details of bank account and bank statements. The ld. AR submitted that the AO has added Rs. 10,09,859/- which includes income of earlier AY.2016- 17, which has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and accepted by the Department. He submitted that in AY.2016-17 and 2017-18, assessee himself supervised agricultural operation, which yielded higher income. The ld. AR relied upon the following decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Surat: (i) Chandrakant Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO, ITA No.68/SRT/2024, (ii) Jehan Percy Variav vs. ITO, ITA No. 612/SRT/2024, (iii) Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Anghan vs. ITO, ITA No. 451/SRT/2024, (iv) Ishwarbhai Karshanbhai Patel vs. ITO, ITA No. 385/SRT/2024 and (v) Ashwinbhai Somabai Patel vs. ITO, IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... monetization period. The appellant submitted that apart from her own agricultural holding, she had taken on rent the agricultural land of some other land owner, due to which more agricultural income was earned in the subject assessment year. The AO has examined such claim of assessee which is at page 8 to 10 of the assessment order. She has concluded that (i) no tenant details are available on government record, (ii) details of crop cultivated shows 'Padtar', which means no agricultural activity has been undertaken on the land and (iii) that there was no irrigation facility in the land. These findings have not been disproved by the appellant before CIT(A) or the Tribunal. Therefore, the plea of extra agricultural income cannot be accepted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 245/SRT/2021, Jitendra Nemichand Gupta vs. ITO, in ITA No.211/SRT/2021 and Sanjaybhai Mansukhbhai Patel vs. DCIT, in ITA No.869/SRT/2023; the Indore Bench in DCIT vs. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.677/Ind/2019 and the Jabalpur Bench in ACIT vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain, in ITA No.41/Jab/2020 held that applicability of amended provision of Section 115BBE of the Act is not retrospective. There is no reason not to follow above decisions. Thus, the AO is directed to tax the addition at normal rate of tax and applicable surcharges and cess, if any. The assessee is, accordingly, allowed relief against taxing the addition at higher rate u/s 115BE of the Act. This ground is allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
