NEERAJ SINHA, HUF,PATNA vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 27.01.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 15.03.2022.

For that the Ld. A.O erred in not only treating the exempted income as unexplained money of the appellant though the appellant has all the relevant papers and documents to show that he has correctly claimed the income as income from agriculture but also initiating proceedings u/s147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 though there was no proper reason for doing so.

For that other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an HUF and had filed the original return of income showing the total income of ₹2,05,630/- and agricultural income of ₹6,15,000/-, which was claimed as exempt. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act as the assessee was alleged to have claimed bogus agricultural income which otherwise was income from undisclosed sources and, therefore, was required to be added back to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') provided adequate opportunities to the assessee through issuance of statutory notices but the assessee failed to submit the complete documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the agriculture income which had been claimed as exempt. Since the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act was not complied with, therefore, the total income was assessed at ₹8,20,830/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147/144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who issued several notices for hearing through emails mentioned but as there was no compliance and the assessee failed to furnish any reply/documentary evidences in respect of the grounds of appeal despite being provided ample opportunities in the course of the appellate proceeding, the addition of ₹6,15,000/- made on account of