EKKI KRISHNAMURTHY HUF,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

ITA 104/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 March 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits, as the assessee had provided a detailed statement of facts. The Tribunal also found that the AO's estimation of agricultural income lacked a scientific basis and cogent material, particularly considering the nature of crops and verifiable banking transactions. The addition made by the AO was not sustained.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Erki Krishnamurthy HUF, declared agricultural income of Rs. 41,51,600 which was revised from an initial taxable income of Rs. 2,63,450. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 60,000 per acre, accepting Rs. 26,32,500 and treating the balance of Rs. 15,19,100 as income from other sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits, and whether the AO's estimation of agricultural income was sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Hearing: 26.02.2026Pronounced: 17.03.2026

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 09 .10.2025. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal which are interconnected. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of agricultural income and treating the same as income from other sources.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee is a HUF. In the original return filed for the year under consideration, the assessee declared total taxable income of Rs. 2,63,450/-only. Subsequently, th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →