Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, whose sole income source is agriculture, did not file an income tax return for assessment year 2011-12. The revenue received information about a substantial deposit in the assessee's bank account, leading to a reassessment under section 147. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income, which were upheld by the CIT(Appeals).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details and supporting documents to justify their claims regarding cost of acquisition and improvement. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were valid and whether the additions made were justified based on the evidence provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 54F, 234A, 234B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed in Appeal No. CIT (A), Aligarh/10358/2018- 19 by the Ld. Add./JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2011-12, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal.
Brief facts state that the appellant assessee, having only source of income from agriculture, did not file return of income for the year under consideration. However, the revenue had an information that the assessee deposited Rs.12,00,000/- during F.Y. 2010-11 in his saving bank account maintained with Shreyas Gramin Bank, Virampur, Etah. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee was required to furnish the evidences regarding his claim of cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act, but for no avail. Therefore, learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act and assessed total income at Rs.11,49,800/-.
3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal for want of details of improvement in property and other supporting documents to justify his claim. In such circumstances, learned CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 19.11.2018.
Assessee preferred this second appeal on the following grounds :
“1. That the learned Assessment officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating proceedings under section 147 rws 143(3) of the Act.
2. That the learned commissioner of Income tax Appeals has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 which was completed without complying with the requirement of law or taking proper approval.
That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Assessing Officer even when the assessing officer acted on 2 | P a g e borrowed satisfaction after relying on the mechanical information without verifying the same.
4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in completing the proceedings without adhering the principle of natural justice.
5. That the learned authorities above have erred in law and on facts in treating the total cash deposits of Rs. 75,390/- as undisclosed income even when the same was out of availability as the appellant have raised from previous years accumulations, savings and bank withdrawals etc.
6. That the learned authorities has erred in law and on facts to upheld the impugned order as passed by the Ld. A.O. regarding the impugned additions which was not covered in initiation of assessment proceedings.
7. That the learned authorities has erred in law and on facts to upheld the impugned proceedings whereas the proceedings has been completed under limited scrutiny without converted into complete proceedings.
8. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making Impugned addition of Rs. 4,19,711/- as wrongly disallowed indexed cost of acquisition as claimed by the appellant.
That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in wrongly calculating the cost of acquisition of capital asset on mere surmises and conjectures.
That the learned authorities has erred in law and on facts in not providing statutory deduction as per sec 54 of the I.T Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,24,695/- while computing the capital gain.
That the learned authorities has erred in law and on facts in making the Impugned addition of Rs. 5,09,077 arbitrary on account of disallowing the cost of improvement incurred by the appellant. 12. That the learned Authorities has erred in law and on facts in wrongly charging interest u/s 234A and 2348. 13. That the order is bad in law and against the facts of the case.
That any other relief or reliefs deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted. …………………..”
Perused the records and heard learned representative for assessee and learned Sr. DR for revenue.
It has been submitted by the ld. AR that an opportunity be granted to the assessee for furnishing the details of cost of improvement and making submissions with respect to the other required details before the Assessing Officer, which assessee failed to do so before the revenue authorities.
7. Ld. Sr. DR has supported the impugned order.
We notice that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee did not provide any detail with supporting documents to justify his claim. It also transpires that assessee could not make any substantial compliance during the assessment proceedings. In such facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. Assessee is directed to make his submissions to justify the cost of improvement etc. without seeking unnecessary adjournment. Assessing Officer is directed to pass an order a fresh after considering the submissions made and evidences adduced by the assessee. Needless to say, that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The impugned order dated 12.03.2025 and assessment order dated 19.11.2018 are set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.