BILLINKOTE RAMAKRISHNAIAH JAGADEESH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

The assessee has filed this petition challenging the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2016-17.

The appeal is barred by limitation by 595 days. The assessee has filed a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay. We notice that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was served upon the assessee on 10.1.2020 and hence the due date for filing before ITAT would be 10th March, 2020. However, it was filed on 30-08-2021. It was submitted that there was little delay in collating the necessary

I heard the parties on this preliminary issue and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made in the petition, I am of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

The issues contested in this appeal relate to following additions:- a) Addition made u/s 68 of the Act - Rs.23,00,000/- b) Addition of agricultural income - Rs. 7,33,044/-

The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.3,33,980/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has shown creditors balance of Rs.23 lakhs as “Hand loan from relative” in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2016. The assessee submitted that he has received a hand loan of Rs.23 lakhs from his brother-in-law named Shri Srinivas Patil. He also filed a confirmation letter from the above said person. Since the assessee did not furnish any other detail, the A.O. assessed the cash credit of Rs.23 lakhs as unexplained cash credit and levied tax u/s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The assessee had also declared agricultural income of Rs.7,33,044/-. Since the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of the claim of agricultural income, the A.O. treated the same also as income under the head “income from other sources” and levied tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the Billinkote Ramakrishnaiah Jagadeesh, Bangalore

With regard to the cash credit, addition of Rs.23 lakhs, the Ld. A.R. submitted that it is an opening balance brought forward from the earlier year. He submitted that the balance outstanding in the name of the relative was Rs.44 lakhs as on 31.3.2015 and after repayment of a portion of the same, the remaining amount of Rs.23 lakhs was shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2016. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the total cash deposits made into the bank account of the assessee was around Rs.7 lakhs only and hence there could not be any receipt of Rs.23.00 lakhs. He further submitted that the opening balance of cash credit could not have been assessed in the year under consideration u/s 68 of the Act, as the same is not received during the current year. He submitted that the assessee has furnished copies of bank statements and also copies of income tax return filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 in support of the above said contentions. The Ld. A.R. accordingly prayed that these documents be admitted and the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O. for examining it afresh.

With regard to the addition of agricultural income, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has furnished copies of land holding and crop certificate as additional evidences. He submitted that, for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, they could not be furnished before the tax authorities. Accordingly, he prayed that these documents also be admitted and this issue may also be restored to the file of the A.O.

I heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee has furnished additional evidences to prove that the hand land balance of Rs.23 lakhs represents balance brought forward from earlier year and also copies of land holding and crop certificate in support of the claim of agricultural income. In the interest of natural justice, I am of the view that these evidences should be admitted and the matters may be restored to the file of the A.O for examining both the issues afresh. There should not be any dispute that the admission of additional evidences filed in support of the claim made in the return of income would promote the cause of justice. Accordingly, I admit the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Since both the issues required to be examined afresh duly considering the additional evidences furnished by the assessee, I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on both the issues and restore them to the file of AO for examining them afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the A.O. may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.