D.R. RAMACHANDRAN,SALEM vs. ITO WARD 1,DHARMAPURI, DHARMAPURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3914/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 August 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the lower authorities' reason for addition was the lack of evidence for agricultural operations and sales. Considering the assessee's circumstances and the need for natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed significant cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed the cash was from agricultural income but failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained money was justified without sufficient documentary evidence of agricultural income. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to produce evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Ms. D.Nithya, Addl. CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 07.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

2.

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 46,00,500/- in the savings bank account.

:- 2 -: Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 20.12.2019 declaring total income of Rs.3,07,450/-. The assessee submitted before the A.O that he is basically an agriculturist having 40 acres of land and that the assessee is doing intensive cultivation of mango, turmeric and tapioca roots. The assessee further submitted that the cash is generated out of the agriculture income and the deposits into the bank account is out of the sale proceeds of the agriculture produce. The assessee also submitted that periodical withdrawals have done towards agriculture expenses and the unutilized amount is deposited back into the bank account. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences in support of the submissions made and that the assessee has submitted only the Patta of the agriculture lands which is not sufficient. The AO accordingly made an addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the addition stating that: “6.7 It may be appreciated that in order to claim the income from agriculture operations, the assessee has to prove that the assessee owns or possess agricultural land. The agriculture operations are actually carried out. The agriculture produce is sold in the open market. The sale of agriculture produce is realised. The expenditure incurred for agriculture operations is considered. The net agriculture income accrued to the assessee is disclosed. 6.8 In the instant case, it is found that assessee failed to produce any documentary evidences with respect to the ownership of agricultural land and subsequently also failed to produce any documentary evidence that the assessee has carried out cultivation, harvesting, post-harvesting or any other agriculture operations. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of any documentary evidences that the assessee has carried out agriculture operations on the land owned or possess by him, grounds of the contested by the assessee at serial No. 1 to 9 are dismissed.”

:- 3 -: 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the order of the lower authorities, we notice that the primary reason for the making the addition is that the assessee has not submitted any evidences in support of the claim that he has actually engaged in agricultural operations and has sold the agricultural produce in the market. It is further noticed that the lower authorities have contended that the assessee has not substantiated with proper documentary evidence, the details of the sale of agriculture produce such as the party name, the produce sold, the amount realized in cash etc. During the course of hearing, The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and is not well versed with income tax proceedings. The Ld. AR further submitted that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee undertakes to submit required documents explaining the source for the cash deposits. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, vehemently opposed stating that the assessee has not produced any documents and has not discharged the burden of proving the source for the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

:- 4 -: 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th day of August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member लेखा लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 07th August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: NARESH Date: 2026.08.10 12:00:07 +05'30' 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →