SUKHVEER SINGH,RAMPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, RAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2367/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2026AY 2019-20203 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a lack of discussion by lower authorities on examining revenue records for crops grown. While the assessee also failed to provide complete revenue records, the Tribunal deemed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.88 Lakhs just and proper in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 21.68 Lakhs, but the lower authorities disallowed Rs. 6.88 Lakhs on estimation. The Assessing Officer accepted Rs. 4.8 Lakhs as agricultural income from 24 acres of land.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of agricultural income was justified without proper examination of revenue records and whether the assessee provided sufficient proof of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 20.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2367/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3) Shri Sukhveer Singh, H.No. 8, Hardua, Bhonrka Rampur-2 Milak Rampur-244701 Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh PAN: KWPPS9792L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Pawan Aggarwal, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR[Through VC]

Date of hearing 20.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 20.01.2025 passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072331655(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

ITA No.2367/Del/2026

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 339 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It is evident during the course of hearing that the able assistance came from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s agricultural income claim of Rs. 21.68 Lakhs to the extent of Rs. 6.88 Lakhs on estimation basis, in assessment order dated 29.03.2016 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. It is made clear that the learned Assessing Officer has himself accepted the assessee’s claim of having derived agricultural income amounting to Rs. 4.8Lakhs from 24 acres of land @ Rs. 20,000/- per unit thereby disallowing the remaining claim in question. That being the case, it is noticed that there is not even an iota of discussion in both the learned lower authorities respective findings as to whether they had actually examined the assessee’s corresponding revenue 2 | P a g e

ITA No.2367/Del/2026

records including Khasra, Khatauni etc, regarding the crops grown at her behest. The fact also remains that the assessee appears to have failed in not pleading and proving the corresponding revenue records to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities as well. Be that as it may, keeping in mind totality of the relevant facts herein, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 1.88 lakhs only in the assesse’s hand would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee/appellant gets relief of Rs. 15 Lakhs in other words. The necessary computation shall follow as per law.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th April, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →