RITA BHARAT KOTHARI,MANGALURU,MANGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU

ITA 1963/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 September 2026AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not disputed the assessee's agricultural income. It was noted that the agricultural lands were situated in remote areas without banking facilities, a fact not disputed by the Revenue even after inspection. The CIT(A) had partly accepted cash received from the sale of rubber trees and had not denied the receipt itself. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s estimation of cash receipts at Rs. 10,00,000 was made without any material or cogent evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal disagreed with the estimation, considering it to be without basis. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 that was estimated by the CIT(A), thereby setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowing the grounds raised by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 33,38,400. Her case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted cash deposits of Rs. 35,25,000 in Dena Bank. The assessee stated she owns 44 acres of agricultural land and grows Cardamom, Rubber, and other crops. The AO, unsatisfied with the explanation, made an addition of Rs. 35,25,000 as unexplained money under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who partly allowed the appeal by estimating additions at Rs. 10,00,000.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 sustained by the learned CIT(A) as unexplained money under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act is justified, considering the cash received from the sale of old rubber trees. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition for cash deposits from the sale of rubber trees, especially since capital gains on the sale of old rubber trees were offered and accepted. The assessee also contended that the addition sustained was excessive and should be reduced. Furthermore, the assessee claimed to own agricultural land beyond village limits with no banking facilities, and that cash was received from agricultural operations and tuition fees. The estimation of Rs. 10,00,000 by the CIT(A) was argued to be without basis. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S - Addl. CIT
Pronounced: 22.09.2026

PER SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1086825844(1) dated 04.03.2026 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, arising out of the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2019. 1

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an Individual and filed her Return of Income on 31.05.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 33,38,400/- for the AY 2017-18. The case was selecte

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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →