K CHANDRAPRAKASH (HUF),COIMBATORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE

ITA 2585/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is the first appellate fact-finding authority and the assessee deserves an effective opportunity to substantiate its claim. Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the substantive grounds on merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be permitted to furnish relevant documentary evidence, which will be considered along with the material already on record. The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate all grounds by passing a reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal clarified that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the addition or the Assessing Officer's estimation of agricultural income at 15%. All factual and legal issues are left open for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, K Chandraprakash (HUF), engaged in agricultural activities, filed its return for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring taxable income of Rs.60,203/- and exempt agricultural income of Rs.72,78,646/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny due to the high agricultural income. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 85% of the claimed gross agricultural receipts of Rs.79,04,626/-, amounting to Rs.67,18,932/-, treating it as income from other sources. This was due to unsupported vouchers, low bank receipts compared to claimed receipts, and lack of adequate evidence for agricultural operations. The AO accepted only 15% of the gross receipts as genuine. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to non-compliance and failure to furnish supporting evidence. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine, thereby failing to adjudicate the substantive grounds on merits, contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in indirectly confirming the addition of Rs.67,18,932/- made as income from other sources without considering the documents and evidences submitted during the assessment proceedings, and without considering the area under cultivation and type of crops cultivated by the appellant, as argued by the assessee. 3. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs.67,18,932/- out of the claimed gross agricultural receipts of Rs.79,04,626/- by arbitrarily estimating only 15% as genuine agricultural income and treating the balance 85% as income from other sources, without any basis or material on record, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 05.10.2026

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], confirming the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: K Chand

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 10(1)

All 394 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →