YUNUS MAHEMUD PATEL,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition mechanically, without applying his mind to the facts in the present case and without considering the documents filed before him.

LEAVE

The ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that assessee is an Agriculturalist and entire income is exempt. Ld.AR further submitted that ld.CIT(A) has called-for a remand report from Assessing Officer regarding the submissions made by the assessee. However, copy of the remand report has not been provided to the assessee. This is violation of natural justice.

1 Ld. AR filed a paper book containing 72 pages. Ld. AR invited our attention to copies of the 7/12 extracts and Agricultural receipts and pleaded that Assessee had earned income from sale of Agricultural produce. Ld. AR submitted that in order to obtain loan from banks, the Assessee withdrew the amounts and re- deposited it so that turnover is high. Ld. AR submitted that entire amount is out of sale of Agricultural produce. Hence, no addition can be made.

Ld.DR for the Revenue submitted that five opportunities were granted by Assessing Officer, but Assessee failed to comply. Ld. DR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has specifically mentioned in para 5 that copy of the remand report was provided to Assessee and Assessee has filed reply dated 16.12.2024 in response to remand report dated 05.11.2024.The ld.DR relied on the order of AO and ld.CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y.2012- 13. The Assessing Officer received information regarding cash deposits with State Bank of India(SBI) of Rs.25,08,000/-. Assessing Officer issue notice u/s.148 dated 28.03.2019.Assessing Officer issued subsequent notices u/s.142(1), however, Assessee failed to comply to notices issued by Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.144 assessing the income at Rs.25,08,000/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Assessee filed additional evidences before ld.CIT(A). As per Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 the ld.CIT(A) forwarded the documents filed by Assessee to the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer filed his report on 05.11.2024. Copy of the report dated 05.11.2024 was provided by ld.CIT(A) to the Assessee which is mentioned in paragraph 8 and paragraph 5 of the order of ld.CIT(A). We have perused the order of ld.CIT(A) and the paper

Ld.AR has submitted before us that ld.CIT(A) has not considered the copies of bills issued by Agricultural Marketing Committee, Latur which Assessee had filed before ld.CIT(A) to demonstrate the source of income. We have carefully studied the copies of Agricultural Marketing Committee submitted by Assessee in the paper book. The total receipts as per these bills is around Rs.13.50 lakhs only. However, Assessee has not filed any details of Agricultural expenditure, if Assessee has received Rs.13.50 lakh, Assessee must have spent some amount to earn the said income. Assessee has pleaded that the only source of income is Agricultural income. We have also studied the copies of 7/12 extracts filed by Assessee to prove that Assessee have Agricultural income. On perusal of these 7/12 extracts which are Revenue records maintained by Talati of the Village, it is observed that the land is in the name of four to five persons. It means the Agricultural income also belongs to all these four to five persons. We have already mentioned above that ld.CIT(A) has considered the submission of the assessee and sustained only an amount of Rs.9,09,000/- out of Rs.25,08,000/-. After considering the submission of Assessee, we are of the considered view that ld.CIT(A) has considered all the material filed by Assessee and accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th Aug, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE