SAVITRAMMA,CHIKKABALLAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, CHIKKABALLAPURA

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessee is engaged in agriculture and is a person with 75% Permanent Locomotor Disability as certified by the concerned authority. It was further submitted that the assessee and her entire family are engaged in agriculture. It was also submitted that after the death of her husband on 10/12/2025, the assessee is overseeing all the agricultural activities. The learned AR submitted that the agricultural activities primarily include growing tomatoes, mangoes and other produce. Further, sales of agricultural produce were regularly made at the APMC Yard, Bagepalli, through a registered commission agent. The learned AR submitted that the requisite details regarding the cash deposit could not be furnished before the lower authorities, and given an opportunity, the assessee will furnish all the details as the entire cash deposits are from the sale of agricultural produce. As regards the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), the learned AR submitted that the consultant of the assessee misplaced the papers in his office and only on receipt of the demand notice, the assessee came to know that the appeal against the assessment order had not been filed. Thereafter, the necessary steps were taken to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A), which resulted in the delay.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities.

We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and, for the year under consideration, did not file her return of income. Pursuant to the information received under the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, it was noticed that the assessee had deposited cash during the year under consideration in a bank account.

Since the assessee did not furnish complete details, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to complete the assessment on best judgment basis and vide order dated 10/03/2025 passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act computed the total income of the assessee at INR 14,47,407 after making an addition of INR 4,50,000, being the cash deposited by the assessee in her bank account maintained with Karnataka Gramin Bank, under section 69A of the Act. Further, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the source of investment in the time deposits, the entire amount of INR 9,57,138 was added to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. The AO also made the addition on account of interest income amounting to INR 40,269 received by the assessee.

The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay of 113 days. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, it is evident that in the present case, complete details could not be furnished before the AO in support of the claim that the cash deposited in the bank account and time deposit is on account of the 5 agricultural income earned by the assessee. From the documents placed on record, we find that the assessee is more than 75% disabled, and in this regard, the certificate of disability issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has been placed on record. Further, the assessee has also furnished a copy of the RTC, APMC bills, etc. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserves another opportunity to substantiate her claim that the deposits in the bank account are on account of the sale of agricultural produce. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication after examination of the details furnished by the assessee. We further direct the assessee to fully cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish any other details as may be sought by the AO. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.