INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA vs. TACHETHU YOHANNAN JOSE, PATTIMATTOM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 740/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 November 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI HON'BLE MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), noting that the assessment order was ex-parte and the assessee failed to provide proper evidence for cultivation. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 8% of the gross turnover to be reasonable and justified. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 84,66,408/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee appealed, and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by estimating profit from pineapple sales at 8% of the gross turnover. Aggrieved by this decision, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the justification of the addition made under Section 69A and whether the CIT(A) was correct in estimating profit from cultivation when the assessee failed to provide evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN

Before: HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI HON’BLE MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 06.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

Year: 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, Tachethu Yohannan Jose, Ward-2, Vs. Thachethu House, Aluva. Pattimattom, Ernanakulam – 683 562. PAN: AKBPJ 6727G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Abraham Thomas, C.A ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 06.08.2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) passed ex-order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 07.02.2025 making addition of Rs.84,66,408/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal.

3.

Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us.

4.

Before us, the Ld. Snr A.R for Revenue read out entire grounds which are in nature of arguments. The Ld. A.R relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record and find that the assessment order passed is ex-parte. We further find that in the appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee was not able to file proper evidence to prove cultivation. However, the ld.CIT(A) has estimated the profit from selling pineapples at 8% of the gross turnover [8% of Rs.84,66,408/- =Rs.6,77,313/-]. We have deliberated our thought to the facts of the case and find that the view taken by the ld.CIT(A) is reasonable and justified. We are fully agree with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) hence affirm the same.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Cochin.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →