Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, declared Rs.51,40,000 as agricultural income for AY 2020-2021. The AO disbelieved this income and added it under Section 69A, completing the assessment under Section 143(3) due to insufficient documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing reasons like unsigned English translations of lease deeds, lack of sale bills, and unclarified mode of receipt.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s rejection was partly based on unsigned English translations, but original Malayalam lease deeds, which were signed, were produced before the Tribunal. The assessee also furnished bank statements evidencing agricultural receipts and sale agreements for trees. Given this, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide necessary evidence regarding land ownership and agricultural income.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.51,40,000 under Section 69A by disbelieving the agricultural income declared by the assessee in his return of income.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao
:Asst.Year 2020-2021 Sri.Benoy Philip The Income Tax Officer B-241/A Puthumana House v. Ward 1 & TPS Thabore P.O. Mookkannoor Aluva. Ernakulam – 683 577. PAN : AKWPP5101F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.P.J.Babu, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :09.04.2025 Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 O R D E R
Per George George K, Vice-President :
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s [“CIT(A)”] order dated 07.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2020- 2021.
The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made u/s.69A of the Act amounting to Rs.51,40,000 disbelieving the agricultural income that was declared by the assessee in his return of income.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
. Sri.Benoy Philip The assessee is an agriculturist. For the assessment year 2020- 2021, the return of income was filed on 25.09.2020 declaring total income of Rs.5,93,600. In the said return of income, the assessee had also disclosed agricultural income of Rs.51,40,000. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. Thereafter various notices were issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. To the notice issued on 04.01.2022 u/s.142(1), the assessee filed reply. To other notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, the assessee did not respond. Since, assessee did not furnish documentary evidence in support of receipt of agricultural income, the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act by disbelieving the agricultural income disclosed in the return of income and adding the same as income u/s.69A of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee furnished lease deeds for lease of agricultural property and also sale agreements for sale of teak wood and rubber trees. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and has got extensive land holding, hence, the agricultural income disclosed in the return may be accepted. The CIT(A), however, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that no evidence were produced such as sale bill regarding sale of rubber trees, nutmeg and teak wood, etc. The CIT(A) also mentioned that the English translation of the agreement of the lease deeds has not been signed by both the parties. Further, the CIT(A) also stated that the assessee has not placed on record how the amount of Rs.51,40,000 has been received whether by cash or through banking channel?
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing therein six original lease deeds in Malayalam and also translated copies in English. The assessee has also furnished the bank statements disclosing agricultural receipts are received through bank channels, etc. The learned AR submitted that in the interests of justice and equity, the case may be remanded to the AO.
The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO and the CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is the claim of the learned AR that the assessee is the owner of about 60 acres of agricultural land. It is further claimed by the learned AR that the assessee had given on lease his lands for agricultural operations. In support of the claim of the assessee, the assessee had furnished original lease deeds in Malayalam and also English translation of the same. The CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the assessee primarily for the reason that the English translation of the lease deeds have not been signed by the lessor and the lessee. On perusal of the original Malayalam lease deeds, we find that both the lessor and the lessee have been signed the said lease deeds. The assessee has also furnished on record the agreements for sale of rubber trees and teakwood. The assessee has also furnished bank statement evidencing that the agricultural receipts are received through banking channels. The AO and the CIT(A) had rejected the claim of the assessee since sufficient documentary evidences were not furnished before them . Sri.Benoy Philip in support of the assessee’s claim that he has earned agricultural income to the tune of Rs.51,40,000. In the interests of justice and equity, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to furnish necessary evidences that he is the owner of land and he has received agricultural income to the extent declared in the return of income. For the aforesaid purpose, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. The assessee shall produce evidence as regards the ownership of the land, relevant lease deeds based on which the assessee had received the agricultural income, etc. The AO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 9th day of April, 2025.