Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS ASTHA CHANDRA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the
ld. CIT(A) – 20, New Delhi, dated 21.02.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-
16.
The grievances of the assessee read as under:
“1. That the order is bad in law facts of the case.
Because the confirmation of addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 34,20,000/- is bad in view of the same is not recorded in the books of account.
Because non acceptance of additional evidence in respect of current liability of Rs. 13,71,321/-,is against the law, especially when the books of account are audited.
Because the assessee reserves the right to file detail/more ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the case.”
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed
her return of income on 08.10.2015 declaring income of Rs.
21,01,230/-. In her return of income, the assessee inadvertently
returned agricultural income as Rs. 38 lakhs instead of Rs. 3.80 lakhs.
During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, when the
Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify her agricultural income
of Rs. 38 lakhs, she replied that it was an inadvertent error and income
is only Rs. 3.80 lakhs. It was explained that the assessee tried to
revise the return but could not revise it.
This explanation of the assessee did not find any favour with the
Assessing Officer who proceeded by making an addition of Rs. 34.20
lakhs being the amount of difference between Rs. 38 lakhs and Rs. 3.80
lakhs.
Proceeding further, the Assessing Officer noticed that there is a
current liability of Rs. 13,71,321/- payable to some sub-contractors
and on receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer made
addition of the same by treating the same as bogus.
The assessee agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but
without any success.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated
that due to some technical error, the return could not be revised and
when she tried to explain the agricultural holding, the ld. CIT(A)
refused to admit any evidence and decided the appeal against the
assessee.
The ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing
Officer.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the
authorities below. It is true that the assessee has shown Rs. 38 lakhs
as agricultural income. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the
assessee tried to give evidences in support of her agricultural holding
to justify that she cannot earn agricultural income of Rs. 38 lakhs from
that agricultural holding. But the same was not admitted by the ld.
CIT(A).
We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and
fair play, the documentary evidences should have been admitted. We,
therefore, restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The
assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidence in support of
agricultural income of Rs. 3.80 lakhs and the Assessing Officer is
directed to decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable and
adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Assessing Officer shall also re-examine the issue of sundry
liabilities being the amount payable to sub-contractors for which the
assessee shall furnish necessary documentary evidences.
In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 9300/DEL/2019
is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2023 in the
presence of both the rival representatives.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ASTHA CHANDRA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 30th OCTOBER, 2023.
VL/