SRI SINGARAM RAMASAMY ,TRICHY vs. ITO , WARD - 3 (2), TRICHY

The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 92 days in filing the appeal, for which, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay in the form of an affidavit, to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that from the records available with the Department, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee had entered into financial transaction during the financial year 2010-11 and not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. Since there was reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and generated notice under section 148 of the Act and duly served on the assessee. Since there was no response/compliance from the assessee , a show cause notice dated 21.11.2018 was generated and served on the assessee requiring to show cause why the assessment for the AY 2011-12 should not be completed under section 144 of the Act after making additions based on the material facts available on record. The assessee filed the return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act on 23.11.2018 admitting a total income of ₹.1,55,000/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 26.11.2018 was duly served on the assessee. Since there was no response, a show cause notice has been issued on the assessee. The AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer on 27.12.2018 and filed written submissions along with details. After considering the submissions of the assessee and since there was no adequate evidence to prove for the balance deposits of ₹.4,69,300/-, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained sources and added to the income returned, besides estimating personal drawings at ₹.50,000/- as the assessee has not admitted personal drawing (cash expenses). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 27.12.2018 by treating the cash deposit of ₹.5,19,300/- as from unexplained sources and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) (NAFC) confirmed the assessment order.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing detailed written submissions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for deleting the addition of ₹.5,19,300/-.

On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book and written submissions filed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In this case, in the absence of material evidence towards cash deposits, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of ₹.5,19,300/- as unexplained sources and brought to tax which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Against the addition of ₹.5,19,300/-, it was submitted that the assessee is basically an agriculturist and drives income from house property and interest. By filing sale deeds, it was the submission that the assessee owns 1.5 acres of dry lands and derived an agricultural income of ₹.1,35,000/-. Before the ld. CIT(A), similar submissions were also made and the assessee was ready to produce necessary evidences towards agricultural activities and such agricultural income. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not called for any details from the assessee. The agricultural income claimed by the assessee is liable to be accepted since the assessee owns agricultural (dry) lands, which is not under dispute.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.