Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 45,65,060, with taxable income as Nil. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 99,91,105 as income from other sources, making an addition. The CIT(A) upheld this order and dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate agricultural income at both the assessment and appellate stages. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is bad in law due to the failure to appreciate documentary evidence supporting agricultural income.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SONJOY SARMA
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Roji Philip……………….……………..…...………………..…..….……….Appellant MankkalamPallil, Ambalavayal, SulthanBathery, Wayanad, Kerala – 673593. [PAN:BUIPR5357N] vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kalpetta…….…..….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Arun Raj S, Adv., appeared on behalf of the assessee. Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing: June11, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: August 12, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.12.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018–19.
Brief Fact of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year, declaring total income as agricultural income of Rs. 45,65,060 by showing taxable income as Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), by treating a sum of Rs. 99,91,105 as income from other sources, thereby making an addition to the returned income.
Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions and documents filed, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal.
Roji Philip 4. The assessee has now come in further appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is bad in law and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the documentary evidence submitted in support of agricultural income. The authorities below erred in treating the genuine agricultural receipts as income from other sources without proper reasoning or verification. Therefore instant addition is liable to be set aside.
We have heard the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record and from the records, it is evident that at the time of assessment, the assessee could not furnish sufficient supporting evidence to substantiate the claim of agricultural income and even at the appellate stage, the assessee failed to properly respond to the specific queries raised by the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the genuineness and quantum of agricultural income. We therefore in the interest of justice, considered view that the matter needs re-examination by the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard, and shall be directed to submit relevant supporting documents in order to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, instant the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim of agricultural income.
Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
12th August, 2025