Smt. Vidywati Murgayya Malalimath, Bagalkot V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bijapur

ITA 866/BANG/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3671 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CHYTHANYA MUDURUBETTA
• Section: 68; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

ITA No.866/Bang/2023 Smt. Vidyawati Murgayya Malalimath, Bagalkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.866/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Vidyawati Murgayya Malalimath #32 Jhamkhandi Siddapur Bagalkot 587 301 Karnataka PAN NO.CBIPM4978E Vs. ACIT Circle-1 Bijapur ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sri Chythanya Mudurubetta, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is against order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) dated 28.3.2023 for the AY 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18 is not only illegal but also opposed to facts and circumstances of the case 2. That there is no justification to reject genuine agricultural receipts and agricultural income by the Assessing Officer. 3. That there is no basis in determining agricultural income of Rs. 3,58,536/- as against disclosed net income of agriculture to the extent of Rs.9,54,082/- for AY 2017-18. ITA No.866/Bang/2023 Smt. Vidyawati Murgayya Malalimath, Bagalkot Page 2 of 4 4. There is no justification to reject source of deposit made into the bank a/c and taxing of Rs. 10,05,000 at 60% u/s 68r.w.s 115BBE. The action of Assessing Officer is unjustified despite of filing explanation for source of deposit made into Bank A/c. 5. That there is no justification to demand huge tax of Rs. 11,28,815/-for AY 2017- 18 which is highly arbitrary in nature 6. That the Assessing Officer is unjustified in arriving at wrong conclusions based on the details filed in regard to agricultural income and source of deposit made. The reasons given are uncalled for and opposed to the principles of natural justice 7. That there is no basis to hold that cash deposit made into bank a/c is unexplained. Similarly, there is no justification to initiate penalty u/s 271AAC for said Asst Year 8. That NFAC. Delhi is not justified in rejecting appeal grounds in a summary manner. 9. That any other ground of appeal shall be urged at the time of appeal hearing with the permission of the Appellate Authority. 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee has filed ITR for AY 2017-18 by disclosing total income of Rs.5,810 and claimed exempted income from agriculture and others Rs.11,86,287/-. The case was selected for a limited scrutiny under CASS by the ACIT Circle 1, Bijapur for the said Asst Year. The assessee filed details of agricultural income on 15.10.2019 and subsequently replied to the enquiry of the Assessing Officer. The assessee had derived gross agricultural income of Rs.11,06,942 from sale of corn, sugarcane, sugarcane seeds and banana grown on the agricultural lands. The assessee claimed expenditure of agricultural activity towards fertilizer, seeds and labour and claimed net income of agriculture for the year ending 31.03.201 7 to the extent ofRs.9,54,082/- which is supported by Income and Expenditure Account for the said year. The Assessing Officer has recognized details of agricultural income in the Asst Order. But the Assessing Officer has rejected source of agricultural income for having deposited Rs. 10,05,000/- into the bank a/c on 24.1.2016. The assessee has shown reconciled source of income for the cash deposited for Rs. 10,05,000/- and also explained on agricultural income and expenses. The Assessing Officer has estimated agricultural income of Rs.3,58,536/- as against disclosed agricultural income of ITA No.866/Bang/2023 Smt. Vidyawati Murgayya Malalimath, Bagalkot Page 3 of 4 Rs.9,54,082/- in the ITR. Thus, he has levied tax on difference of Rs. 5,95,546/- under section 68 as “Income from Other Source”. Against this the assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), Belagavi with regard to above additions. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition with regard to addition made under the head “Income from other sources” at Rs.5,95,546/-. With regard to cash deposit also, he sustained the addition. Against this assessee is once again in appeal before us by way of above grounds. 3. At the outset, it was observed that there was a delay of 162 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. has submitted that assessee was not well versed with ITBA portal and she came to know about the passing of order by NFAC only in the last week of Sept’23. When she enquired about the status of her appeal before ld. CIT(A) from her CA, he stated that the ld. CIT(A) has already passed the order and dismissed her appeal on 28.3.2023. Thereafter assessee approached a new advocate and took steps to file the appeal, which has been filed before this Tribunal on 8.11.23. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal to the tune of 162 days. Accordingly, the ld. A.R. prayed that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice and appeal be admitted for adjudication. 4. The ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of appeal for adjudication saying that assessee was very negligent in taking steps in filing appeal before this Tribunal in time. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As explained by the assessee, the assessee was not well versed with I.T. portal and only on enquiry with her CA, she came to know that in the last week of Sept’23, order was passed on her appeal by the first appellate authority and thereafter assessee approached a new advocate and took steps to file her appeal, which has been filed before this Tribunal on 8.11.23. ITA No.866/Bang/2023 Smt. Vidyawati Murgayya Malalimath, Bagalkot Page 4 of 4 5.1 In our opinion, there is a good and sufficient reason in filing the appeal belatedly before this Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication. 5.2 With regard to the order of NFAC, we are of the opinion that the order has been passed by NFAC in a very mechanical manner without addressing the issues in her appeal properly. NFAC is required to pass the speaking order addressing each issue raised by the assessee independently and the order of the NFAC is non speaking. Hence, in the interest of justice, we vacate the order of NFAC and we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration to decide the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26 th Feb, 2024 Sd/- (George George K.) Vice President Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 26 th Feb, 2024. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.