JITHU JOHN,CALICUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 202/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 December 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide independent findings justifying the addition. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 23,00,000/- against a total income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- by disbelieving the agricultural income due to lack of supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of disbelieved agricultural income was justified without proper findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 09.12.2024Pronounced: 09.12.2024

O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16.12.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from agricultural activities. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was fled on 24.12.2013 declaring income of Rs. 2,00,000/- and showing agricultural income of Rs. 23,00,000/-. Against the said return of income assessment was Jithu John completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward (1)(2), Kozhikode (hereinafter “the AO”) vide order dated 21.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 9,00,000/- after making addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- disbelieving the agricultural income of Rs. 7,00,000/- by holding that the assessee has failed to file supporting evidences of agricultural income.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of the AO with documentary evidences.

4.

Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

When the appeal was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor is there any application for adjournment. Therefore, I proceed to dispose the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.

6.

The short issue in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in making the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- disbelieving the agricultural income. On a perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that there is no finding by the AO that the agricultural income was shown as application for acquisition of an asset or source of incurring expenditure. Even the CIT(A), without adverting to the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal raised before him, merely confirmed the action of the AO without giving any independent findings as to how the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- is justified. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO with a direction for de novo assessment in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →