PURAN HAYAT SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 566/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had agricultural and business activities, they failed to satisfactorily prove the source of all receipts. Therefore, a lump sum addition was made for each head, granting partial relief.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income and business income. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69A for undisclosed income related to agricultural land and capital account. The assessee appealed these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 69A for undisclosed income were justified, and if not, to what extent relief should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.04.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1059993128(1), dated 22.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.566/PUN./2024

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. The Learned Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,59,630/- u/s 69A, being part of the agricultural

income of Rs.5,25,880/- as declared by the appellant by rejecting appellants contention. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. The Learned Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.13,50,000 u/s 69A being proceed receives on a/c of agricultural land, without appreciating the facts of the case appellant prays for the deletion of entire addition.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. The Learned Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.4,15,100 u/s 69A being amount introduced in capital

A/c out of passed withdrawals. The additions deserve to be deleted.

Your appellant craves for to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all above or any grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.”

3. Suffice to say, the assessee’s foregoing substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities inter alia making the impugned three sec.69A additions involving Rs.2,59,630/- Rs.13.50 lakhs and Rs.4.15 lakhs; respectively. Mr. Somnath Wajale vehemently argued that all the three impugned additions have been rightly

3 ITA.No.566/PUN./2024 made in assessee’s hands as he had failed to plead and prove the relevant source thereof in assessment as well as during lower appellate proceedings.

4.

I note in this factual backdrop that there is no denial to the assessee’s stand in principle that he had indeed been deriving agricultural income as well as carrying regular business activity(ies) in the nature of wastage goods, scrap and fire wood scrap sales. It is sufficiently indicated therefrom that very possibility of cash receipts in these activities could not be altogether ruled out. The fact also remains that the assessee has not satisfactorily pleaded and proved all the relevant facts so as to get out of the rigor of sec.69A of the Act.

Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of agricultural income of Rs.1 lakh out of Rs.2,59,630/-; Rs.6 lakhs out of Rs.13.50 lakhs and Rs.2,15,100/- out of Rs.4,15,100/-; head-wise; respectively would meet the ends of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in other case(s). The assessee gets relief of Rs.1,59,630/-; Rs.7.50 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs head-wise, respectively, in otherwords. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

4 ITA.No.566/PUN./2024 Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →