PARASURAMAN MOGANRAJA,COIMBATORE vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(4), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 840/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently shown agricultural income in preceding years, which were accepted. Therefore, disallowing the entire income without contrary material was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 18,38,335/- in their return. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner (Appeals) added this income as unexplained money/income from other sources due to lack of supporting documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO/CIT(A) were justified in treating agricultural income as unexplained money/income from other sources solely due to the absence of documentary evidence, despite a history of accepted agricultural income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 22.05.2024Pronounced: 19.06.2024

Parasuraman Moganraja, The Income Tax Officer, 75-78, TRV Complex, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-1(4), RG Street, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AKFPM-3011-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri G. Suresh, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 30.01.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 17.12.2019. :- 2 -:

2.

The only ground of appeal in assessee’s appeal is against the addition of agriculture income of Rs. 18,38,335/- shown in the return of income as income from other sources by the AO/CIT(A).

3. The A.O has made the addition of agriculture income of Rs.18,33,335/- shown in the return of income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish details like patta, chitta, adangal, VAO certificate, proof for sale of agricultural produce, details of expenses claimed etc. in support of agriculture income. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition noting that the assessee could not produce the evidences of agriculture income even before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld.CIT(A) held the addition of Rs. 18,38,335/- as income from other sources.

4.

The Ld. A.R has argued that it has been showing agriculture income in the return of income from A.Y 2011-12 to 2017-18 as under:

Assessment Year Agricultural income 2011-12 Rs. 1,00,000/- 2012-13 Rs. 1,00,000/- 2013-14 Rs. 12,00,000/- 2014-15 Rs. 15,00,000/- 2015-16 Rs. 25,38,953/- 2016-17 Rs. 22,75,455/- 2017-18 Rs. 18,38,335/- :- 3 -:

5.

The Ld. A.R has submitted that the agriculture income shown by assesse has been shown in preceding years have been accepted, therefore there is no reason not to accept agriculture income this year.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below.

7.

We have heard the rival contentions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the agriculture income shown in the return of income as income from other sources only on the ground that the documents such as patta, chitta, adangal, VAO certificate, proof for sale of agricultural produce, details of expenses claimed etc. were not produced either before the AO or before the Ld CIT(A). We agree with the arguments of Ld. DR that it was the responsibility of the assessee to produce the documentary evidence before the authorities to substantiate the claim of agriculture income .

However it is evident that assessee has been showing agriculture income since 2011-12 and in the preceding year itself agriculture income shown is Rs 22,75,455/ . Therefore, the Ld. AO/CIT(A) was not justified to hold entire agriculture income shown as income from other sources without bringing any contrary material to this effect.

Considering the facts of the matrix, we set aside the order of Ld. :- 4 -:

CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of A.O for fresh assessment. The assessee is also to co-operate and submit documents in support of the claim .

8.

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

Order pronounced on 19th June, 2024. (यस यस िव"ने" रिव) (जगदीश) (Jagadish) (SS Viswanethra Ravi) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य /Accountant Member सद"य सद"य / Judicial Member "याियक सद"य "याियक "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 19th June, 2024. EDN/-

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →