Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee claimed agricultural income of ₹23,59,540/- as exempt in A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessing Officer treated this income as bogus and made an addition, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) through an ex-parte order. The assessee filed appeals against this confirmation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's ownership of agricultural land and the acceptance of agricultural income by the department in previous assessment years (AY 2005-06, 2006-07) even under Section 143(3). Finding the addition to be without basis, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of agricultural income as bogus by the Assessing Officer, despite the assessee providing evidence of land ownership and prior acceptance of such income by the department, was justified.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 03.05.2024 for the AY 2018-19.
Since, the issue involved in both these appeals is common and the appeals relates to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience.
At the outset, we observed that there is a delay of 77 days in filing the appeals by the assessee for which the condonation petitions along with the affidavits were filed before us.
The only issue raised is against the confirmation of addition of ₹23,59,540/- by ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of bogus agricultural income.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 23.03.2018, declaring total income at ₹ nil while claiming that the agricultural income of ₹23,59,540/- as exempt. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and were also replied by the assessee. The assessee is owner of agricultural land qua which the evidences were placed before the ld. AO in the current year as well as in the earlier assessment years. The ld. AO has accepted the agricultural income in the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the copies of the assessment orders are available in the paper book. However, during the year, the ld. AO treated the income from agriculture as bogus and added the same to the income of the assessee.
In the appellate proceedings, there was no representation on the part of the assessee resulting into passing an ex-parte order filed by the appellate authority.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is owner of agricultural land for which the necessary details/evidences were filed before the ld. Assessing Officer. Admittedly, there is no dispute as to the ownership
The issue raised in this appeal is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 1939/KOL/2024. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal of assessee in ITA No.1940/KOL/2024. Hence, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.04.2025.