← Back to search

SUNITA OJHA,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), CHENNAI

PDF
ITA 1406/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 February 20254 pages

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद! एवं ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! के सम(
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1406/Chny/2024
िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sunita Ojha,
403, 403-D, T.H. Road,
Chennai - 600 019. [PAN: ABSPS 8591D]

Vs.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Non Corporate Circle-6(1),
Chennai.

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

( यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri Rajesh Samdaria, FCA
HIथ की ओर से /Respondent by :
Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
13.11.2024
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
07.02.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 08.04.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 24.10.2019. :- 2 -:

2.

The only ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 22,57,000/- in the bank account, rejecting assessee’s explanation that source of cash deposit was agriculture income.

3.

The assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 12.10.2017 by declaring total income of Rs. 22,21,930/-. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 22,57,000/- during demonetization period. The assessee has explained the cash deposit out of agriculture proceeds. However, the A.O has rejected the explanation as the assessee only submitted the proof of land holding, but has not submitted evidence of any proceed of agriculture income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as the assessee only submitted a copy of land document, but has not submitted the details how the agriculture income earned by it, the kind of crop it was grown, the various details pertaining to irrigation used in the said agricultural land, modus operandi of the sales made of such agricultural produce, etc. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that the assessee has not justified how the cash was generated in Bikaner region from sale of agriculture produce and cash was deposited in Chennai. :- 3 -:

4.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has argued that the assessee has been filing return of income since 2005- 06 including the agriculture income, and the cash deposited is out of sale of agricultural produce. The Ld. AR has submitted additional evidence in the form of bills for agriculture produce sold, which was not furnished before the lower authorities, supporting her contention that cash deposit was from agriculture income.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 22,18,107/- in the return of income. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposit in the bank account out of sale of agricultural produce. The A.O/Ld. CIT(A) have not accepted the assessee’s explanation, as the assessee has only submitted the evidence of land holding and has not provided any supporting evidence for the agricultural income. In the return of income, the assessee has reported gross agricultural receipts of Rs. 25,90,247/- and claimed expenditure of Rs.3,72,140/- on agriculture, resulting in net agricultural income of Rs.22,18,107/-. The additional evidence of :- 4 -:

agricultural produce sold was not submitted before the lower authorities. Therefore, we are of the opinion that these documents need examination by the A.O . We, accordingly remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo assessment. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for her fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 07th February, 2025. (एबी टी. वक )
(ABY. T. Varkey)
ाियक सद! / Judicial Member
(जगदीश)
(Jagadish)
लेखा सद! /Accountant Member
चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 07th February, 2025. EDN/-
आदेश क ितिलप अेषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF

SUNITA OJHA,CHENNAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), CHENNAI | BharatTax