Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
आदेश / O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai dated 07.10.2016 in IT No.18/CIT(A)-10/2011-12 for the assessment year 2009-10 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.
The appeal was filed by the assessee with a delay of 2 days.
The Ld. AR submitted that the delay had occurred due to the misplacement of the files by the counsel of the assessee. The Ld. AR further pleaded that since the assessee was at no fault, the delay may be condoned. The Ld. DR strongly objected to the submission of the Ld. AR. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered view that the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal should be condoned because there was no fault on the part of the assessee. Accordingly I hereby condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.
The assessee has raised elaborate and descriptive ground in his appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,00,290/- made by the Ld.AO under the head income from undisclosed sources.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year on 16.10.2009 admitting total income of Rs.2,20,440/-.
Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny on CASS/AIR and notice was issued u/s.143(2) of the Act. From the AR report it was revealed that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.22,03,000/- in his savings bank account during the relevant previous year. On query it was explained that out of Rs.22,03,000/- an amount of Rs.18,43,000/- pertain to agricultural income. The assessee was asked to produce evidence for agricultural receipts against which the assessee produced sale receipts of his agricultural produce to the extent of Rs.16,42,710/-. Since the assessee could not produce the sale receipts for the balance amount of Rs.2,00,290/- the same was treated as his undisclosed income. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the Ld.AO agreeing with his view.
Before us, the Ld.AR produced the purchase deed dated 06.05.2005 for having acquired agricultural land of 49.34½ acres situated at Erasakkanayakanur Village, Uththamapalayam Taluk, Theni District, Tamil Nadu. Therefore the existence of agricultural land is not in dispute. The Ld. AR has also submitted the sanction letter of bank for granting agricultural loan for Rs.35,00,000/- in order to prove the viability of his agricultural activity. Further before the Ld.AO the assessee has produced receipts for sale of agricultural produce for an amount aggregating to Rs.16,42,710/- which is accepted by the Revenue. There is shortfall of only Rs.2,00,290/- with respect to the availability of receipts for having sold agricultural produce. When the Revenue has accepted the agricultural income of Rs.16,42,710/- to be genuine then there is no reasonable logic to reject the balance agricultural income of Rs.2,00,290/- only for the reason that there were no receipts to prove the sale of agricultural produce, when it is a fact that the receipt for sale of agricultural produces are difficult to obtain from the market. Therefore I am of the considered view that addition made for Rs.2,00,290/- is not warranted. Accordingly, I hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made for Rs.2,00,290/-. However I make it clear that, earning of agricultural income is a fact to be ascertained for every assessment year and therefore does not have a precedent value.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on the 24th April, 2017.