DEBASISH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1212/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 October 2025AY 2020-2021Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to furnish proper documentary evidence to substantiate claims before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate afresh after providing the assessee ample opportunity to submit all necessary explanations and documents, including new evidence under Rule 46A.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, filed a return of income which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer treated income derived from subletting agricultural land as business income, denying agricultural income exemption and disallowing expenses under Section 40A(3) due to cash payments. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the classification of income from subletting agricultural land (agricultural income versus business income) and the disallowance of cash-paid expenses under Section 40A(3) due to lack of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 40A(3),Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

order

: October 16, 2025 ORDER

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

1.

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.04.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020–21.

2.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee being an individual filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.2,15,650/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued but the assessee failed to respond. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice and the assessee responded to the said notice stating that the assessee had taken 33.83 acres of agricultural land for rend from various land owners and the said land was then given to different cultivators for agricultural purposes. The Assessing Officer denied the agricultural Debasish Banerjee income of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,05,71,570/- as the Assessing Officer observed that the income earned on subletting the agricultural land to the cultivators is in the nature of business income. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the details of rent paid to the land owners and also bank statement, PAN details to whom the assessee paid rent. The assessee replied that the rents were paid to the land owners in cash and not through bank as they were all agriculturists and did not have any bank accounts, PAN or email ids. However, the Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed by the assessee as agricultural income of Rs.73,20,800/- treating the same as business income and also disallowed an expense of Rs.32,50,770/- incurred by the assessee by invoking section 40A(3) of the Act passing an assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

4.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim properly before the Assessing Officer, so instead of arguing on merits of the case, the assessee has only prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh verification as the order passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has failed to file documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer.

5.

Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.

6.

Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the records and find that the Assessing Officer made the additions on account of non-submission of details/documents.

Debasish Banerjee We also find that the assessee has submitted the following details before us:

1.

copy of the lease deeds between the land owner(s) and the assessee 2. copy of the land records of the land owners along with the copy of the their Aadhar cards 3. copy of the agreement entered into between the assessee and the cultivators 4. copy of the Aadhar cards of the cultivators 6.1 Under the circumstances, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee of hearing and examining the explanations and documents which will submit by the assessee during the remand proceeding. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting all evidences/documents and if necessary, the assessee may file new evidences u/r 46A of the I.T. Rules to substantiate his case.

7.

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

Kolkata, the 16th October, 2025.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →