GUDDI,KAITHAL V. ITO WARD -1, KAITHAL

ITA 892/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Guddi, an agriculturist, who appealed against the addition of Rs.6.50 Lacs to her income for the Assessment Year 2019-20, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, based on the belief that the assessee had not reported certain income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient agricultural income and past savings to account for the deposits in question, and thus, the addition was unjustified. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessee's status as a pure agriculturist, her ownership of agricultural land, and the lack of any other income sources.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787187 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOATENLA LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR SINGLA LD. VIRTUAL
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.892/CHANDI/2025 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Guddi C/o Sanjay Kumar Singla (Advocate) Opp. Dist. Court Gate No. 2 Nehru Garden Colony Kaithal, Haryana-136027 बनाम/ Vs. ITO Ward-1 Kaithal, Haryana ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. CPMPG-5314-L (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar Singla (Advocate)- Ld. AR (Virtual) ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Smt. Moatenla (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 16-05-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 20-03-2024. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.6.50 Lacs. Having heard rival Printed from counselvise.com 2 submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under. 2. The assessee did not file her return of income. However, belief of escapement of income was formed by Ld. AO pursuant to the receipt of information that the assessee made transactions of Rs.13,00,601/- with Ramesh Shriram Singh. A notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 25-01- 2023 and an order was passed u/s 148A(d) on 03-03-2023 for want of any response from the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 was issued on 03-03-2023 proposing to reassess the income of the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee stated that it was an agriculturist and owner of 3 acre agricultural land at VPO Balu, Kalayat. The assessee borrowed Kisan Cash Limit (KCC) of Rs.6 Lacs with Bank of Baroda. On 01-05-2018, the assessee had to repay KCC limit of Rs.6.50 Lacs along with interest and principle out of her agricultural income and cash-in-hand as available with her. No other transaction was stated to be carried out by the assessee in her bank account. Since the assessee was purely an agriculturist, no return of income was filed by her. However, Ld. AO did not accept the source of Rs.6.50 Lacs and added the same u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. During first appeal, the assessee, inter-alia, contended that part of the deposits was sourced out of dairy farm business being run by her husband. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the same for want of any documentary evidences. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us on legal grounds as well as on merits. Printed from counselvise.com 3 5. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee owns agricultural land of 3 acre and she is purely an agriculturist. The same is also evident from the copy of Jamabandi as placed in the paper-book. This fact has also not been disputed by Ld. AO. The assessee has secured KCC loan against agricultural land. During the year, the assessee has repaid the same by depositing an amount of Rs.6.50 Lacs on 01-05- 2018. The deposits are stated to be secured out of her agricultural income, past savings and out of dairy business being run by her husband. The assessee is a pure agriculturist owning sufficient land to generate reasonable agricultural income during the year as well as in earlier years. The accumulation of past savings and contribution from her husband could also not be ruled out. Being an agriculturist, the assessee is not required to file her Income Tax Return. The assessee does not have any other source of income. Keeping in mind all these factors, the explanation of deposits of Rs.6.50 Lacs being from agricultural income, past savings and contribution from husband could be accepted. The assessee has not made any other deposits during the year. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to delete the impugned addition. The other legal grounds as urged by Ld. AR have been rendered infructuous. 6. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 19/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com 4 Dated: 19/11/2025 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "