PRADEEP,THENI vs. ITO, WARD-1, THENI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2487/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 September 2026AY 2021-226 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional documents as evidence, finding them relevant and necessary for a proper adjudication. However, since these documents were not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared substantial agricultural income, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained money under Section 69A for failing to substantiate the claim. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, and the assessee sought to admit additional documents before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence, not produced before lower authorities, should be admitted by the ITAT and if so, what is the course of action. The primary issue is the substantiation of agricultural income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRIS.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 13.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”], dated 06.08.2025 confirming the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2021-22.

2.

The assessee has filed a petition under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence.

ITA No. 2487/Chny/2025 (AY 2021-22) Pradeep Vs ITO W(1) :: 2 :: 3. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee filed his return of income on 26.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs.1,64,120/- and exempt agricultural income of Rs.62,64,604/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of the agricultural income declared by the assessee.The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 26.12.2022, wherein agricultural receipts of Rs.64,08,349/- were treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily substantiate the agricultural income. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 06.08.2025.

4.

Before us, the assessee has sought admission of certain sale deeds, gift deeds and a Will deed, along with their translations, which, according to the assessee, establish the ownership/acquisition and history of the agricultural lands relevant to the claim of agricultural income.The assessee has explained that the aforesaid documents could not be produced before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), as the assessee could not obtain possession of all the relevant transfer deeds at the relevant point of time. It has been submitted that the omission was bona fide and not deliberate and that the documents are material for proper adjudication of the issue.

ITA No. 2487/Chny/2025 (AY 2021-22) Pradeep Vs ITO W(1) :: 3 :: 5. The documents sought to be admitted as additional evidence are as under: Sr. Date Particulars 31.01.1969 1 Sale Deed, Document No. 305 of 1969, along with translation 13.06.1994 2 Sale Deed, Document No. 1189 of 1994, along with translation 15.02.1995 Sale Deed, Document No. 231 of 1995, along with 3 translation 07.08.2003 4 Sale Deed, Document No. 1027 of 2003, along with translation 01.09.2008 5 Sale Deed, Document No. 2649 of 2008, along with translation 19.04.2010 6 Gift Deed, Document No. 1610 of 2010, along with translation 12.12.2011 7 Gift Deed, Document No. 6172 of 2011, along with translation 13.12.2011 Sale Deed, Document No. 6202 of 2011, along with 8 translation 13.06.2014 9 Sale Deed, Document No. 1942 of 2014, along with translation 27.10.2014 10 Sale Deed, Document No. 3552 of 2014, along with translation 27.11.2015 11 Sale Deed, Document No. 4124 of 2015, along with translation 12 29.11.2017 Sale Deed, Document No. 3385 of 2017, along with translation 15.10.2020 Will Deed, Document No. 164 of 2020, along with 13 translation

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 empowers the Tribunal to admit additional evidence where it considers the same necessary for disposing of the appeal or for any other substantial cause.

7.

In the present case, the dispute before us relates to the agricultural income claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has treated agricultural receipts amounting to Rs.64,08,349/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act essentially on the

ITA No. 2487/Chny/2025 (AY 2021-22) Pradeep Vs ITO W(1) :: 4 :: ground that the assessee failed to satisfactorily substantiate the agricultural income. The additional documents now sought to be produced consist, inter alia, of sale deeds, gift deeds and a Will deed pertaining to various dates and are stated to relate to the acquisition/transfer and ownership of the agricultural land. These documents, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant to the issue under consideration. They may have a material bearing upon the assessee's claim and require examination by the Assessing Officer. We also note that the assessee has furnished an explanation for non-production of the documents before the lower authorities, namely, that all the relevant transfer deeds were not available with the assessee at the relevant time and could be obtained subsequently. Having regard to the nature of the documents and the explanation furnished, we are of the considered view that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for seeking admission of the additional evidence. At the same time, the documents have not been examined or verified by the Assessing Officer. Their authenticity, evidentiary value, linkage with the agricultural land claimed by the assessee, extent and ownership of land, period of holding, nature of agricultural operations, agricultural receipts and all other relevant aspects require factual verification. In our considered opinion, therefore, the additional evidence is relevant and necessary for arriving at a just and proper conclusion in the matter. Refusal to admit such material evidence, particularly when it may have a direct bearing on the issue in dispute, may result in the matter being decided without considering material facts. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice and for proper adjudication of the dispute, we deem it appropriate to admit the

ITA No. 2487/Chny/2025 (AY 2021-22) Pradeep Vs ITO W(1) :: 5 :: aforesaid documents as additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

8.

However, admission of the documents does not, by itself, establish the genuineness or correctness of the assessee's claim. The evidentiary value and relevance of the documents are matters to be examined by the Assessing Officer after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Since the aforesaid documents were not before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), and since their admission necessitates examination and verification of facts, we are of the view that the matter requires to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 06.08.2025 is set aside and the issue relating to the treatment of agricultural receipts of Rs.64,08,349/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall examine the additional evidence now admitted by us and carry out such verification as may be considered necessary in accordance with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to furnish before the Assessing Officer all documents and explanations in support of his claim, including the additional evidence admitted by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall decide the issue afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. 9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim or on the evidentiary value/genuineness of the documents produced before us. All issues are left open for determination by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law.

ITA No. 2487/Chny/2025 (AY 2021-22) Pradeep Vs ITO W(1) :: 6 :: 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02nd day of September, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 02nd September, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क! ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF SAND Digitally signed by EEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMA Date: 2026.09.08 R 09:50:22 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →