BALASAHEB KASHINATH KAMBLE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1792/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 February 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant evidence to support their claim of agricultural income.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at a higher amount due to additions on account of agricultural income, which the assessee claimed was not properly considered. The assessee also stated that a serious accident prevented timely submission of documents during assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of agricultural income without a speaking order and proper consideration of evidence. Whether the assessee's non-compliance during assessment proceedings was due to a genuine reason like an accident.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI RIPOTE DIPAK PANDURANG, AM

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri
Hearing: 31.01.2022Pronounced: 02.02.2022

ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

1.

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 6, Pune dated 10.09.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the following grounds of appeal on record :- “1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in adding back Agricultural Income without giving a speaking order.

2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessee along with his wife and brothers holds 22 Acres of land yielding Agricultural Income from the same which was accounted for in the said A.Y. 2015-16.

3. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has added back item treating them as unexplained Cash Deposits and not Agricultural Income.

4. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the various documents produced such as 7/12 extract to determine the Agricultural Income.”

2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation providing hired vehicles to various companies. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 23.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.34,68,824/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.12.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.75,79,500/- after making addition of Rs.41,10,673/- on account of agricultural income as the assessee had failed to submit the details of agricultural income.

3.

Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order sustained the action of the Assessing Officer for want of proper evidence in support of agricultural income, which could not be produced by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee along with his wife and brothers holds 22 Acres of land yielding agricultural income from the same which was accounted for in the year under consideration. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has added back item treating them as unexplained cash deposits and not agricultural income. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the various documents produced such as 7/12 extract to determine the agricultural income. 6. On the other hand. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →