GAYTRI DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. DCITI CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, documentary evidence regarding agricultural income should have been admitted. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after allowing the assessee to furnish evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee inadvertently declared agricultural income of Rs. 38 lakhs instead of Rs. 3.80 lakhs. The Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 34.20 lakhs to the income. Additionally, a current liability of Rs. 13,71,321/- was treated as bogus.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of the difference in agricultural income was justified without admitting evidence. Whether the current liability was correctly treated as bogus without proper examination.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 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.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
