Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU R.L.REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, dated 07.11.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Two effective grounds raised in the appeal of the assessee is that (i) the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of business loss of trading in shares and (ii) disallowance of agricultural income.
The appeal of the assessee is found to have been filed late by 110 days before the Tribunal. By referring to the condonation petition in the form of Affidavit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee’s :- 2 -: mother had fallen very ill on 20.11.2017 and subsequently passed-away due to her illness on 05.01.2018, thereby the assessee could not able to file the appeal within the time. In support of the above submissions, the assessee has also filed death certificate issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation. The ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. By considering the submissions made in the affidavit as well as death certificate of assessee’s mother, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, the delay of 110 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.03.2014 admitting a total income of ₹.32,41,351/-. The Assessing Officer passed the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] by determining the assessed income at ₹.68,78,506/- after disallowing gross business loss as well as disallowance of agricultural income.
3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowances.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
:- 3 -: 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. With regard to the disallowance of business loss, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the observations of the Assessing Officer at para 5 of the assessment order reads as under: “5. The reply of the assessee was considered carefully. Even though the assessee has filed contract notes, Demat Account statement and bank statements, there is no reason to believe that the transactions in shares due to which the business loss has arisen are genuine. ….” For making the disallowance the Assessing Officer has not given any valid reason for disbelieving the details furnished by the assessee. The assessment order is very cryptic and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to pass detailed speaking order afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
With regard to the disallowance of agricultural income, the submissions of the assessee that the sale proceeds from agriculture were derived by cash by sale to farmers and villagers around the agricultural land is acceptable subject to furnishing of the details of agricultural land, due certification from the VAO, etc. otherwise, the addition shall be sustained. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to furnish complete details of agricultural land before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue after verification of details as may be furnished by the assessee.
:- 4 -: 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 27th November, 2018, in Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (धु"ु" आर.एल. रे"ी) (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (DUVVURU R.L. REDDY) लेखा सद"/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद"/JUDICIAL MEMBER