AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.09.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for A.Y. 2017-18.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1.That under the facts and circumstances of the case no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing has been allowed by Ld. CIT(A).
2.That under the facts and circumstances Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in not admitting the additional evidences filed under Rule 46A.
3.That under the facts and circumstances of the case both lower authorities erred in law in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 38,15,000/- U/s. 69A for agricultural income.
4.That under the facts and circumstances of the case both lower authorities erred in law in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 29,95,850/- U/s. 69A for cash deposits in bank.
5.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no tax U/s. 115BBE at higher rate of 60% should have been levied.
6.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interest U/s. 234B should have been charged. In any case the calculation are excessive.
Brief facts are that the assessee Sh. Jagdish Lal filed return for AY 2017-18 on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,16,430/- and agricultural income of Rs.41,20,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on the grounds of large cash deposits in the Bank Account as well as high agricultural income shown.
Since the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence, the AO extended the agricultural income from approx. 6 acres of land holding by applying the common stand and fixed by the agricultural department of Rs.50,000/- per acre.
Accordingly, the balance of agricultural income of Rs.38,15,000/- (Rs.41,20,000-3,05,000) was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
Further, the bank account statement of the assessee revealed cash deposits amounting to Rs.72,84,000/-. As the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the source except stating that the same is out of agricultural income.
Ld. AO treated the amount as unexplained and after reducing Rs.41,20,000/- already considered while dealing with agricultural income and giving allowance of Rs.1,68,150/- shown as service receipts from his hotel-cum-guesthouse made addition of the balance amount of Rs.29,95,850/-. Assessment was accordingly completed u/s 143(3) at an assessed income of Rs.71,27,280/- vide order dated 25.11.2019.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed certain fresh evidences in order to substantiate his claim regarding agricultural income but the same was not admitted under Rule 46A by Ld. CIT(A) and he dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 22.09.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee being an agriculturalist, depended on his authorized representative to make requisite compliance before the lower authorities. He sought to furnish the evidence regarding sale of popular trees made during the year before Ld. CIT(A) who has not admitted the additional evidence.
In view of these facts and circumstances, Ld. AR has requested that the matter may be remanded to Ld. AO to enable the assessee to furnish requisite documentary evidences in support of his claim.
Ld. DR on the other hand has relied on the order of Ld. AO and has argued that the assessee's submission had been duly considered before finding the assessment.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for deciding the matter afresh, after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.