GANAPATHI SEETHARAM HEGDE,KARNATAKA vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, CHENNAI

Ganapathi Seetharam Hegde, Income Tax Officer No.21, Totikoppa, Puttanamane,sirsi, Ward-1, Karnakata-581401. Sirsi. [PAN: AAKPH6125K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Bhragu.K.R, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1074763642(1) dated 20.03.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. 2.0 The only issue raised through its grounds of appeal is regarding the addition of Rs.15,82,851/- made by the Ld.AO by treating its agricultural income as income from other sources and its corresponding confirmation by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that admittedly the assessee could not make compliance to the notices of the Ld.CIT(A) on account of preoccupation in pressing personal matters. The Ld.Counsel argued that all along it has been engaged in agricultural activity and deriving income therefrom and that the present action from revenue was therefore unwarranted. It was accordingly requested to delete the impugned addition. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is the case of the assessee that it is owning agricultural lands and is regularly engaged in agricultural activity. In earlier assessment years viz AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 it had net agricultural income of Rs.40 lakhs & 32 lakhs respectively which was accepted by the Ld.AO. It was contended that there is no change in facts of the present year qua ownership of land and corresponding engagement in agricultural activity. In support of its contentions, the appellant placed upon assessment orders of earlier years. We have noted from the order of the Ld.AO that the Revenue has not contested any change in facts from earlier years qua ownership of land and corresponding engagement in agricultural activity save that the non-production of evidences by the assessee in support of its agricultural expenses. We have noted some Page - 2 - of 4 details produced by the assessee which are in vernacular. We have also noted that in earlier years the Ld.AO had conducted detailed inspection of assessee’s agricultural holdings. Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.AO for readjudication de novo. The orders of lower authorities is set aside and the Ld.AO is directed to pass another order after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to make compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Revenue. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.