METTU NAGARATHNAMMA,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BALLARI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.Assessment Year : 2015-16
PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 16/08/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16 on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant submits that, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the IT Act 1961 dated 16.08.2024, for the assessment year 2015-16, is against the principles of natural justice. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is liable to be set aside.
Page 2 of 4
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant submits that, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the explanation and documents filed by the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT(A) is against the law and liable to be quashed.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant submits that, the learned CIT(A), ought to have appreciated that the entire amount to the extent of Rs 14,10,000/ -was an Agriculture Income the same was brought to the notice of the assessing authority that deposited amount of the appellant is genuine, but without considering the same, levied tax as an unexplained income which is not correct. Thus, disallowance of the claim of the appellant determined as unexplained income is bad in law. Thus, the levied interest is excessive arbitrary and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant submits that, additions made by the Assessing Authority under Sec 69 of the IT act and levied tax is incorrect in the appellant case. In fact, the conditions of the Sec 69 of the Act, are not applicable in the appellant case and the same was upheld by the Learned CIT(A) which is not correct. Thus, additions made is baseless far from truth and thus, the order of the assessing authority and learned CIT(A) is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant submits that, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant received all the money through Agriculture Income and same was deposited to Bank. Therefore, the assessing authority cannot say that it is unexplained Income and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A). Thus, levy of tax by the Assessing Authority and CIT(A) is excessive and arbitrary, and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and equity.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant submits that, that without prejudice the levy of tax and Interest is excessive, arbitrary and liable to be deleted in the interest of justice and equity.
In the circumstance of the case, the other grounds will be urged at the time of hearing and the appellant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to set aside the order passed by the assessing authority under Sec 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act 1961 on 03.03. 2023 and the order passed by the Ld.
Page 3 of 4
CIT(A) under section 250 of the IT Act 1961 dated
16.08.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16, in the interest of justice and equity.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and based on the information that the assessee had deposited cash in the Karnataka Bank and received interest of Rs. 27,835/-, the AO had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee replied to the notice and submitted the documents to show that the cash deposited into the bank account is nothing but the agricultural income and therefore prayed to drop further proceedings. The AO had not accepted the said explanations and made an addition u/s. 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposits as unexplained income. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the entire amount assessed u/s. 69A of the Act is nothing but the income received through the agricultural activities and therefore it cannot be treated as an income under the provisions of the Act and also it could not be treated as unexplained income under the provisions of the Act. But unfortunately, the assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that except the agricultural income, the assessee has no other income and submitted that the documents relating to such claim would be filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed to remit the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
We have heard the arguements of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
Page 4 of 4
6. As seen from the assessment order, the assessee right from the beginning submitted that the cash deposits are nothing but the agricultural income and therefore no liability would arise and therefore the same could not be treated as unexplained money. The assessee also filed the documents before the AO but unfortunately the AO had rejected the same and made the assessment u/s. 69A of the Act on the ground that no supporting evidences are enclosed in connection with the agricultural receipts. We have considered the submission made by the Ld.AR that the assessee has no other income except the agricultural income and in order to establish the said facts, we are remitting this issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th January, 2025. (PRASHSANT MAHARISHI)
(SOUNDARARAJAN K.)
Vice - President
Judicial Member
Bangalore,
Dated, the 16th January, 2025. /MS /
Copy to:
1. Appellant
Respondent 3. CIT
DR, ITAT, Bangalore
Guard file
CIT(A)
By order