YOHANN KEKOO SETHNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 280/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 April 2026AY 2021-20223 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish supporting evidence. A cost of ₹2,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income of ₹33,12,391 but failed to provide any supporting documentary evidence like land records or sale details during scrutiny. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and taxed it under section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural income declared by the assessee is substantiated by evidence, and if not, whether it can be treated as unexplained cash credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri Jagesh K Vora, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for assessee
Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 21.11.2025 for Assessment Year 2021–22, wherein the addition of ₹33,12,391 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and taxed under section 115BBE of the Act was confirmed.

2.

The assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in agricultural activities, particularly cultivation of coffee beans. For Assessment Year

ITA No.280/Bang/2026 Page 2 of 3

2021–22, the assessee filed return of income declaring agricultural income of ₹33,12,391 only. During scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish supporting evidence such as land records, proof of cultivation, sale details, crop records, and books of account. The assessee failed to furnish any substantive documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer, finding no supporting material, treated the said amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and brought it to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. The action was confirmed by the CIT(A)/NFAC.

3.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

The ld. AR before us submitted to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per law and undertake the responsibility for making necessary compliance. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the authorities below.

5.

We have considered the submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not furnished any supporting evidence such as proof of landholding or lease, evidence of agricultural operations, crop production records, sale or stock movement details, or books of account substantiating the claimed agricultural activity. However, considering the nature of the claim and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter requires factual verification at the level of the Assessing Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing

ITA No.280/Bang/2026 Page 3 of 3

Officer shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, allow the assessee to furnish all supporting evidence, and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, uninfluenced by earlier findings.

5.1 Since the assessee failed to comply with statutory notices and did not furnish basic supporting evidence during assessment and appellate proceedings, we impose a cost of ₹2,000/-, to be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within a reasonable time. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 29th day of April, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 29th April, 2026 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →