MUKUL JAIN,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), MEERUT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that there was no primary adjudication on the issues of agricultural income and cash deposits by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2014-15. The appeal raised issues regarding the validity of the assessment order, denial of opportunity of hearing, and additions made to agricultural income and cash deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order was null and void due to lack of operative part and proper opportunity of hearing. Whether agricultural income and cash deposits were correctly treated as taxable income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 24.11.2017.
2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. That assessing officer has only given the show cause notice u/s 144 dt. 12.12.2016 in the Asstt. Order and has not made any order/decision in the Asstt. order, there is no finding given in the assessment order after the notice dt. 12.12.2016 has been extracted therein, therefore in the absence of operative part of decision made by the assessing officer in the asstt. order, the assessment order so made is null and void hence deserve to be quashed. The necessary direction to issue notice of demand is also missing in the order.
That proper opportunity of hearing was not given to us hence ex-parte assessment order deserve to be quashed.
Mukul Jain 3. That agriculture income of Rs. 17,67,400.00 has to be allowed as the same has been accepted in the past by AO u/s 143(3) and also by CIT Appeal in appellate proceedings. The assessing officer in his remand report has accepted the agriculture income. Hence the addition confirmed by CIT Appeal deserve to be deleted.
That addition of Rs. 13,08,000.00 being deposit in SB A/c is explained from agriculture income and also withdrawals from the same bank account. Hence addition is against the law and facts of the case and deserve to be deleted. The addition has been made u/s 68 which is against the law, hence addition deserve to be deleted.”
Agricultural Income of Rs.17,67,400/-:
Being an order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the AO has not deliberated on the issue but taxed the agricultural income filed as per the return.
4. The ld. CIT(A) treated this amount as income from business and taxed accordingly.
We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A) which mentioned about the questionnaire issued by the AO and the details of the A.Y. 2013-14 wherein the ld. CIT(A) accepted 90% of the income shown under the head “agricultural income”. During the current year, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the precedent on the grounds that there was absolute of lack of absence of any evidence that could relate to earning of agricultural income during the year.
Thus, effectively, we find that while the Assessment Order was Best Judgment Assessment u/s 144, the ld. CIT(A) summarily rejected the claim of the assessee in the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, there was Mukul Jain no primary adjudication on this issue by the revenue authorities.
Having gone through the documents filed before us, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue taking into consideration the departmental record of Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Cash deposit of Rs.13,08,000/-:
This issue relates to the claim of the assessee as being a part of the agricultural income earned and deposited in cash in the bank account. This issue is interrelated with the earning of the agricultural income and hence we direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide along with the issue of receipts shown as agricultural income.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/01/2023.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
