HOSTHOTA SURYANARAYANA AKASH(HUF),SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request for another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an HUF, declared substantial agricultural income and claimed exemption. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this income as from undisclosed sources and added it to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the agricultural income claimed as exempt was genuine and properly explained. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(2),Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 56(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 27/09/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2021-22.
Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee e-filed the return of income for A.Y.2021-22 on 24.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,93,650/-. The return was processed by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act accepting the Page 2 of returned income. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Subsequently, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaires were issued and served upon the assessee calling for relevant details. In response to the notices, the assessee furnished details through the efiling portal during the assessment proceedings.
2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO observed that, the assessee HUF declared agricultural income of Rs.65,19,279/- during the year under consideration and claimed exemption on the same u/s 10(2) of the Act. The Ld.AO issued show cause notice to the assessee with regard to the amount of Rs.65,19,279/- claimed by the assessee as exempt income. In response, the assessee furnished reply, however, the same was not accepted by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO therefore, concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and treated the amount of Rs.65,19,279/- as income from undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee HUF as income from other sources.
2.3 Aggrieved, by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
2.4 The Ld.CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and held as under: “I find no force in the arguments of the Assessee. The Assessee admittedly is a serving doctor and resides far away from the place where he owns agricultural land. He has not indicated any existence of a sharecropper or Page 3 of explained how he was conducting the agriculture. The agricultural income is huge compared to his land holding coming to more than Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. Accordingly, the addition/disallowance of Rs. 65,19,279/- made by the AO is hereby upheld. The grounds of appeal no. 1 to 6 are thus dismissed.” 2.5 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
All the grounds of appeal are interlinked with each other and are taken up together for adjudication. In these grounds of appeal, the assessee has agitated against the action of the Ld.AO in disallowing the agricultural income of Rs.65,19,279/- and assessing the same as income from undisclosed sources by invoking the provisions of section 56(1) of the Act.
4. Before us, Ld.AR submitted that assessee is not well versed in Income Tax Portal and failed to notice about the notice issued by the department digitally. Hence, he prayed that one more opportunity of hearing may be given before the Ld. CIT(A). We accede to the request of the Ld. A.R. and remit the issue in dispute to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Page 4 of In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2024.
More judgments on Section 10(2)
- Saurabh Goyal, Chandigarh vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-1…ITA 38/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
- Saurabh Goyal, Chandigarh vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 37/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
- Sahara India Tourism Development Corpn… vs ACIT, Circle - 8(2), KolkataITA 357/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
- Seema Sureka, Kolkata vs DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), KolkataITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
- Kunal Rajendra Mashru, Mumbai vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1…ITA 387/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
