RAHUL PRAKASH SANKH L/R OF LATE PRAKASH BASAPPA SANKH,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BIJAPUR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.Assessment Year : 2017-18
PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 19/11/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18 and raised the following grounds:
Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5
2. The assessee filed his return of income in response to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter the return was accepted on 22/11/2019. Subsequently, based on the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the PCIT, Hubli, the assessment was taken up for further adjudication since the assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs. 6,34,500/-. The assessee contended that the said income is out of the agricultural activities and the savings made by him and his wife. In the meanwhile the assessee died.
Since no evidences were furnished in support of their claim, the AO issued notices to the assessee for which the legal heir of the assessee replied and enclosed the copy of the death certificate of the assessee. Then the legal heir of the assessee filed his reply electronically and enclosed some documents in support of the income declared by his deceased father. The AO had not accepted the explanations offered by the legal heir of the deceased assessee and treated the said deposits as unexplained money u/s.
69A of the Act. The AO had made the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee. As against the said order of the AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee also explained the source of income earned by the assessee but the Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the explanation offered by the assessee and dismissed the appeal.
Page 4 of 5
3. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is earning income through agriculture and also earned income from various agriculturists to whom the assessee had identified the borewell points. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee also died after the order accepting the return was passed and therefore prayed to consider the documents filed before the authorities and grant the benefit.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
In this appeal, the total addition made by the AO is about Rs. 6,31,000/- being the income received by way of agricultural income and also income earned through the agriculturists for identifying the borewell points. Admittedly, the assessee also died and only the legal heirs are before us by disputing the said addition made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act.
We have also perused the acknowledgement dated 28/04/2023 in which the assessee had attached the agricultural income proof and letters from persons for having paid the honorarium and the death certificate of the assessee. From the said attachments, we understand that the legal heir of the assessee had tried to explain the source for the income earned by his deceased father. By taking into consideration the fact that the assessee was no more and the cash deposited into the bank account are only the minimum amount and also considering the fact that the legal heir of the assessee had furnished some documents in support of the said claim, we are inclined to allow the appeal filed by the assessee. We also find that the Page 5 of 5 assessment order dated 31/03/2023 was made on the deceased assessee which in our view is also bad in law and therefore the assessment could also be interfered on this ground by setting aside the same.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June, 2025. (PRASHANT MAHARISHI)
(SOUNDARARAJAN K.)
Vice – President
Judicial Member
Bangalore,
Dated, the 26th June, 2025. /MS /
Copy to:
1. Appellant
Respondent 3. CIT
DR, ITAT, Bangalore
Guard file
CIT(A)
By order