JYOTHIKUMAR BHASKARAN SAROJINIAMMA NAIR,TRIVANDRUM V. ITO, WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 877/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jyothikumar Bhaskaran Sarojiniamma Nair, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appellant had declared an agricultural income of Rs. 26,07,285, which was partially disbelieved by the AO, leading to an addition of 50% of the agricultural income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, prompting the appellant to seek relief from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the Senior Departmental Representative and reviewing the materials, concluded that the AO's addition was unjustified as the books of account were not rejected.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23450 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Chandrasekhar Yerena v. ITO [2024] 166 taxmann.com 619
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 877/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jyothikumar Bhaskaran Sarojiniamma Nair .......... Appellant Venad Surgicals, Opp. Casuality Medical College, Thriuvananthapuram 6950 [PAN: ABGPN5784M] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Thiruvananthapuram Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income from agriculture and income from ‘other sources’. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed disclosing income of Rs. 4,10,070/- and agricultural income of Rs. 26,07,285/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Thiruvananthapuram vide order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). While doing so 2 ITA No. 877/Coch/2024 Jyothikumar Bhaskaran Sarojiniamma Nair the AO made addition of 50% of agricultural income of Rs. 26,07,285/- disbelieving the earning of agricultural income. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. In the grounds of appeal the assessee submitted that the AO ought not have made addition of 50% of agricultural income, inasmuch as, the agricultural income is supported by the books of account and certificate from Revenue authorities of the village. Without rejecting the books of account AO ought not have made the addition. Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Vishakhapatanam Bench in the case of Chandrasekhar Yerena v. ITO [2024] 166 taxmann.com 619 wherein the agricultural income offered by the assessee was accepted based on the certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer. Thus, he submitted that the AO was not justified in making the addition. 7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR opposed the submissions of the assessee. 8. I heard the learned Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The AO made addition of 50% of the agricultural income shown by the assessee. From the perusal of assessment order it is not clear whether the 3 ITA No. 877/Coch/2024 Jyothikumar Bhaskaran Sarojiniamma Nair agricultural income was shown as application of income. In the absence of application of income the question of addition does not arise. Undisputedly, the assessee maintained books of accounts. Without rejecting the books of account the AO was not justified in making addition disbelieving agricultural income. Therefore, the matter is set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 10. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th February, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 10th February, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "