SHAILENDRA KAMALAKAR RAUT,DAHANU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

In the instant case, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of information available in sight portal of the department during the year under consideration to the effect that the Assessee during the year under consideration has purchased immovable property on a consideration of Rs.65,00,000/- and also received interest other than interest from securities of Rs.4,128/-.

Accordingly, the notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued to the Assessee, who in response submitted his source of income from agricultural activities being exempt from tax. Further, the Assessee has also claimed that flat at Borivali, Mumbai was purchased on a consideration amount of Rs.65,00,000/-, the sources derived from agricultural activities, money withdrawn from his bank and his brothers and fathers account, who are also agriculturalists.

The Assessing Officer (in short, the ‘AO’) however, not being satisfied passed an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act on 13.03.2024 and accordingly issued a notice dated 13.03.2024 u/s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, examining the case of the Assessee and by considering the relevant documents and submissions submitted, ultimately made the addition of Rs.26,00,000/- being unexplained, which was claimed to be paid by the Assessee’s brother and father directly to the seller out of their agricultural income and consequently added back the said amount in the income of the Assessee.

The Assessee therefore, being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal. Before us, the Assessee has filed paper book containing various documents, with the certificate that some of the documents as mentioned at Sr. No.2, 3, 6, 8 and 10 were not made available with the AO and CIT (A). On being asked the reason for not filing such documents, the Assessee has prayed for leniency by submitting that inadvertently these documents remains to be filed before the authorities below. As the Assessee was not aware that the authorities below will draw adverse inference against the Assessee.

We observe that the aforesaid documents, such as pictures of the Assessee with family members in a farm, confirmation letter issued by the purchaser of agricultural produce/crops from Assessee and his family members, sample of patti receipts issued by the purchaser, ledger account of purchaser for the period under consideration and the samples of patti receipts issued by purchaser, prima facie appears to be essential for proper and just decision of the case and therefore, for substantial justice, we are inclined to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (in short, the ‘JAO’), as the documents mentioned above requires factual verification.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the JAO for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.