PIARE LAL,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1023/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that there was an inadvertent typographical error in reporting the agricultural income. They noted that the declared agricultural income in other years was consistently below Rs. 10.50 Lacs and evidence supported income in the Rs. 8.08 Lacs range.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 80.82 Lacs in their return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this entire amount as unexplained income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that this was a typographical error and the correct amount should have been Rs. 8.08 Lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 80.82 Lacs as unexplained income was justified when the assessee claimed it was a typographical error for Rs. 8.08 Lacs in agricultural income?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B

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: 2020-21) Shri Piare Lal ITO S/o Beli Ram Lahola (Churath) Ward Shimla बनाम/ Vs. Madhwani Kumarsain Shimla (HP) Shimla HP-171213. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AFJPL-6723-M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri M. R. Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 31-07-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25-09-2022. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of cash deposit for Rs.80.82 Lacs. The Ld. AR asserted that certain typographical error occurred in the return of income which led to impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under.

2.

It emerges that in its return of income, the assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs.80.82 Lacs. Accordingly, the assessee was required to file explanation with respect to agricultural income. The assessee, inter-alia, claimed that agricultural income was inadvertently entered as Rs.80.82 Lacs instead of Rs.8.08 Lacs. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO assessed the same as unexplained income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of any further explanation from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

The Ld. AR filed various documents viz. bank statement, copy of apple sale account, copy of jamabandi of land as well as copies of Income Tax Returns for AYs 2015-16, 2019-20 & 2021-22 to demonstrate that the assessee earned agricultural income in all the years. It was stated that substantial income was received through banking channels and the income was inadvertently claimed as Rs.80.82 Lacs instead of Rs.8.08 Lacs. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed any interference in the impugned orders.

4. Upon perusal of all these documents, it could be seen that the assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs.4.12 Lacs in AY 2015- 16, agricultural income of Rs.8.20 Lacs in AY 2019-20 and agricultural income of Rs10.28 Lacs in AY 2021-22. Thus, the agricultural income has always been less than Rs.10.50 Lacs in all three years. In this year, the perusal of copy of sale account of apple would show that the assessee has earned income in that range only. The substantial sale proceeds are received through banking channels. The agricultural holding is substantiated by land documents as placed on record. On these facts, in our considered opinion, the assertion made by the assessee is to be accepted. It appears to be a case of inadvertent error only. Accordingly, we delete impugned addition of Rs.80.82 Lacs. The agricultural income would be assessed at Rs.8.08 Lacs. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee.

4.

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 20-05-2025.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →