Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income and agricultural income, which was claimed as exempt. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices were issued. During verification, a significant deposit was found in the assessee's bank account, and the agricultural income declared was disproportionately higher than in the previous year. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and provide necessary evidence to substantiate the claimed agricultural income. However, considering the disproportionate increase in agricultural income compared to the previous year and the lack of documentation, the Tribunal decided to grant one last opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were justified, and whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the claimed agricultural income.
Sections Cited
143(3), 133(6), 69A, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Mr. Vivek Ram Kotak (assessee /appellant), against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2017-18, dated 29th November, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Income tax officer, Ward 25(1)(4), Mumbai on 18th November, 2019, was dismissed.
Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us, raising following ground of appeal:-
Assessee is in appeal before us. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the notices received by the learned CIT (A) were through e-mail and none of such notices were received by the assessee. Assessee also submitted that the notices sent by the learned CIT (A) are not responded because these e-mails have gone into Spam Box or not received. It was stated that agricultural income is accepted by the learned Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2017-18, and therefore, there is no reason that the agricultural income for this year is not accepted.
The learned Departmental Representative submitted that assessee did not remain present before the learned Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT (A) and in absence of any information the agricultural income for this year could not be established by the assessee and therefore, there is no error in the orders of the learned lower authorities.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. We find that before the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee was given several opportunities and similarly before the learned CIT (A) also assessee was given several opportunities of hearing. Same were not availed by the
In the result, the solitary ground in this appeal is allowed as indicated above. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2024.