JAY JAY RAM YADAV,VILL. SUHAYA BLO.BAMORI, GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051240289(1) dated 24.03.2023, involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have partly rejected the assessee’s claim of having derived exempt agricultural income of Rs.10,06,602/- to the extent of Rs.1,74,602/-; in the course of assessment framed on 15.11.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands. We make it clear that even the learned Assessing Officer has fairly admitted the assessee having cultivated agricultural land admeasuring 41.60 bighas in para 6 of the assessment order. He has further estimated the agricultural income therefrom amounting to Rs. 8.32 lakhs. It is thus clear that the facts of the instant case more require estimation exercise on our part than a substantive adjudication under section 254(1) of the Act.

We keep in mind all these peculiar facts and circumstances and conclude in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not treated as a precedent. We make it clear before