SUBHASH KRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

ITA 2738/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 September 2026AY 2019-20204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had not appeared before the AO and CIT(A), the submission was that the export income was from vegetables, hence agricultural income and not taxable. The Tribunal considered the assessment order for AY 2020-21, where similar income was accepted as agricultural income after the assessee participated and produced records. The Tribunal acknowledged that details were not produced in the current appeal, leading to the income being treated as business income. Considering the facts and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to produce documents, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The issue was remitted to the file of the AO for fresh consideration based on documents to be produced by the assessee. If the assessee demonstrates the income is from vegetable exports, it could be entitled to exemption. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Subhash Krishnappa, an agriculturist, did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20. Based on information regarding export receipts of Rs. 5,66,95,814/- in FY 2018-19, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee did not respond to notices under Section 148 and Section 142(1). A show cause notice was issued, proposing to treat the export receipts as total business turnover and estimate income at 12%. The assessee failed to respond, leading the AO to confirm the addition. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-response to hearing notices. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the income earned from the export of vegetables is liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, or if it qualifies as agricultural income exempt from tax? (Question of law and fact, turning on the nature of income). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the income is derived from the export of vegetables, which constitutes agricultural activities and is therefore not taxable under the Act. The assessee claimed to possess supporting documents but could not produce them before the lower authorities. The assessee also presented an assessment order for AY 2020-21, where similar export income was accepted as agricultural income by the AO. The assessee prayed for an opportunity to present documents and have the matter remitted to the AO. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the assessee had not appeared before the AO or the CIT(A) and therefore, no leniency should be shown, praying for the dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep S., Addl. CIT – DR

PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 23/09/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2019-20. 1 Shri Subhash Krishnappa

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and not filed his return of income. Based on the information received by the Department that

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →