DHANYA KUMAR JAIN,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1),JABALPUR, JABALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 173/JAB/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition (paralytic attack). The Tribunal found that the explanation for cash deposits and agricultural income was supported by certain evidence, and directed the AO to re-assess the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared total income and agricultural income for AY 2017-18. The AO made additions for cash deposits during demonetization and for the claimed agricultural income, stating insufficient proof. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) for cash deposits and agricultural income were justified given the evidence presented by the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CA
For Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

1.

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.09.2023 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

1. That the Ld CIT (A) order is bad in law , facts void ab initio and without jurisdiction.

2. That the Ld CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 10,65,180 against agricultural income shown by the assessee as income from other sources. The assessee has submitted proof of agricultural land holding and also copies of sale bills of agriculture produce. The Ld AO made addition stating that proof of agricultural activity has not been submitted. The addition made is wrong and must be deleted.

3. That the Ld CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 11,83,000 against cash deposited in the bank account out of agricultural sale produce. The Ld AO made addition brusinh aside the proof of Mandi receipt for sale of agriculture.

4. That the Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in making the double addition as once against the agricultural income disclosed in the return and then against the unexplained source of cash deposited out of sale of agricultural produce. Both the addition made must be deleted.

Page 2 of 5 5. The appellant reserves the right to add or amend any ground of appeal

.”

2. It is reported by the Registry that the appeal is barred by limitation for 360 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission as made in the application seeking condonation. The delay in filing was not deliberate but due to reasonable cause he prayed for condonation of delay. The relevant contents of the application are reproduced as under:-

1.The present appeal is filed against the CIT Appeals order dated 26.09.2023. The due date for filing of second appeal was 26.11.2023. However, there is a delay in filing of appeal by 360 days. This is due to medical condition of the assessee. He could not attend his regular work due to paralytic attack. Copy of the affidavit and copy of the medical reports is attached herewith. It is requested before your honour that please condone the delay in filing of the appeal by 360 days and admit the appeal.

3.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”) opposed the submissions and submitted that the assessee has been negligence in filing of appeal. The assessee cannot take advantage of its negligence and there is no reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time by the assessee. The condonation application deserves to be dismissed.

4.

I have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to paralytic attack, the assessee could not attend his regular work. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the time. The reasons stated in the application and looking into the delay of 360 days, I am of the considered view that there was reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time, hence, the delay is condoned on the ground of medical exigency. The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Page 3 of 5 5. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 through electronic mode on 04.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs.2,50,539/- and agriculture income of Rs.10,65,180/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Accordingly, a statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was issued on 16.08.2018 and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. It was noted by the Assessing Officer that during the demonetization period, the assessee had made cash deposit amounting to Rs.11,83,000/- same was added into the income of the assessee. Further, he made an addition of Rs.10,65,180/- in respect of the claim of agriculture income made by the assessee. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the authorities below have grossly erred in making the impugned additions. He contended that the assessee had produced sufficient evidences in the form of sale and bills etc, about the sale of agriculture produce. He further contended that the assessee has been claiming the agriculture income in past and had also furnished to prove of the ownership of land.

7.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submission and drew our attention to a copy of the Revenue record which is enclosed with the paper book to buttress the contention that as per the Revenue records no crop Page 4 of 5 is mentioned, therefore, no agriculture activities was being conducted.

8.

In his rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee has been doing agriculture activities during the period at the same should have been verified from the village Panchayat. Therefore, he contended that the finding of the lower authorities may be sustained and appeal be allowed.

9.

Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that the explanation with regard to the cash deposited in the bank account and claim of agriculture income was based upon the certain evidences. It is the case of the assessee that he has been carrying out the agriculture activities on the land in question. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts, I hereby set aside the assessment order and restore the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to make assessment afresh. Needless to say that the AO would verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee. The grounds raised in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/09/2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →