SHRI CHARANJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's reliance on counsel. It found that past savings and agricultural income could not be doubted and restricted the impugned addition to Rs. 3 Lacs, directing the AO to re-compute the income.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 arose from the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 6 Lacs. The case was reopened based on information of cash deposits, and the AO made an addition of Rs. 16 Lacs, which was restricted to Rs. 6 Lacs by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) on account of cash deposits is justifiable, considering the assessee's agricultural income and past savings, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Charanjit Singh ITO-Ward-3(2) S/o Gurnam Singh Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, बनाम/ Vs. Village Jhande Ludhiana-141001 Ludhiana-140021 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. CYFPM-0023-A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Muskan Garg (CA) – Ld. ARs ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Ludhiana [CIT(A)] dated 04-09-2018 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 143(3)of the Act on 30-11-2016. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.6 Lacs. The registry has noted delay of 597 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR. The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
From case records, it emerges that pursuant to receipt of information of cash deposit of Rs.25.50 Lacs by the assessee during this year, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued. The assessee declared regular income of Rs.1.05 Lacs and agricultural income of Rs.7.50 Lacs. After due consideration of assessee’s replies, Ld. AO accepted source of deposits for Rs.9.50 Lacs and made addition of Rs.16 Lacs for want of satisfactory evidences from the assessee.
The Ld. CIT(A) noted that it was accepted fact that the assessee was owner of agricultural land which was used during the year for cultivation of crops. Therefore, income from agricultural operations could not be denied. The income of Rs.50,000/- per acre could be estimated to be arising out of agricultural operations. As per cash flow statement, the assessee had opening cash of Rs.8 Lacs. Total availability of cash in the form of past savings and income from agriculture and receipts from sale of animals could not be doubted. Considering all these facts, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.6 Lacs. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
We find that the assessee is an agriculturist and not well versed with income tax proceedings. He was fully dependent of legal counsel for income tax proceedings and therefore, he could not be penalized for lapse on the part of its counsel for late filing of present appeal. Accordingly, we condone the appeal and admit the appeal. In view of the fact that accumulation from past savings could not be denied and no fault has been found in the cash flow statement of the assessee, we restrict the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.3 Lacs. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT CHANDIGARH
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026