MANJULA,VILLUPURAM, TAMIL NADU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I

ITA 1162/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Manjula against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed the addition of unexplained money and interest income to her assessment for the year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had reopened her assessment due to large cash deposits in her bank account, which she claimed were proceeds from the sale of Casuarina crops. The Assessing Officer, however, estimated her agricultural income based on normal crops and rejected her explanation after relying on data from Google Earth Pro, which contradicted the authenticated documents provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reliance on unverified Google Earth Pro data over authenticated documents was inappropriate and directed a re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777378 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.95/Mum/2021 dated 11.02.2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0011ा ियक सद एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम' BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1162/Chny/2025 िनधा 8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manjula, 3, Appar Street, V Maruthur, Villupuram – 605 602. PAN: CYEPM 2241R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, CHE-W-(181)(11), Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr S Sridhar, Advocate HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 25.03.2022. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1162/Chny/2025 Manjula :- 2 -: 3. The A.O has reopened the assessment for the reason that there was a huge cash deposits of Rs. 1,12,46,000/- and time deposit of Rs. 20,99,384/-, but the assessee has not filed return of income. The assessee did not file return of income even in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, a reply was filled in response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act stating that assessee is seasonal agriculturist and she gets only agriculture income and therefore, has not filed return of income. The assessee also submitted that she realized amount Rs.93 Lakhs from agriculture activities and the cash deposit is out of agriculture receipts and time deposits are from withdrawal from the deposits. The assessee in support of her reply submitted land account statement depicting 31 acres of land and the income certificate from Tahsildhar stating the income of Rs. 93 Lakhs from harvesting of Casuarina. The A.O made enquiry from Dean of Forestry Department of Forest College and Research Institute, TNAU, Mettupalayam, who estimated the income from Casuarina crop at Rs. 67 Lakhs. The A.O made enquiry through Google Earth Pro and concluded that the assessee has not cultivated Casuarina crop. The A.O therefore did not accept assessee’s explanation that cash deposit in the bank account was out of sale proceeds of Casuarina crop and estimated agriculture Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1162/Chny/2025 Manjula :- 3 -: income from normal crops like paddy, ground nut, tapioca, blackgram etc at Rs. 15,50,000/-. and held that out of a total deposit of Rs.1,18,46,000/-, Rs. 15,50,000/- is explained and added the balance of Rs. 1,02,96,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The A.O also added interest income of Rs. 1,56,018/-. On appeal, the assessee made a written statement stating that bank account was operated by her husband Mr. Sundaramoorthy, who was actively involved in agriculture after his retirement in 2010. Subsequently, on demise of her husband the account was converted into single account. The assessee explained that the source of cash deposit was out of the sale from Casuarina crop. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition stating that the assessee has not furnished any substantial written submission or documentary evidence in support of her ground of appeal challenging the addition. 4. Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the source of cash deposit from sale of Casuarina crop. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has cultivated Casuarina crop over a period of four years in 31 acres of land owned by her deceased husband and the crop harvest took place in April, 2016, which led to deposit of cash into the bank account well Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1162/Chny/2025 Manjula :- 4 -: before the demonetization period. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in support her stand of earning agriculture income has placed on record the certificate obtained from Tahsildar, Villupuram and further placed on record the revenue records for substantiating the availability of cash from agricultural activity. The Ld. AR further submitted that the A.O had obtained report from Dean of Forestry Department, who has certified that the assessee could have earned income of around Rs. 67 Lakhs. However, the A.O ignoring the report of the Dean of Forestry Department has proceeded solely on the data from Google Earth Pro. The Ld. AR has submitted that the Google Earth Data is not authenticated in contradiction to the authenticated revenue record and the certificate issued by the competent authority i.e., Tahsildar Villupuram. The Ld. AR has relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No.95/Mum/2021 dated 11.02.2022 in support of her contention. The Ld. AR has submitted that if the report of Dean of Forestry Department and above information are taken consideration then the remaining component is only to the extent of Rs. 11 Lakhs as against addition of Rs. 1,02,96,000/- made by A.O. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of A.O and Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR further Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1162/Chny/2025 Manjula :- 5 -: argued that the A.O has examined the data from Google Earth Pro and concluded that there was no tree on the land. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,18,46,000/- in her bank account and explained the source of cash of Rs.93 lakhs from sale of Casuarina crop and the balance was from withdrawals from the same bank account. In support, assessee furnished land records and an income certificate from the Tahsildar. The A.O, also obtained report from the Dean of Forestry Department, who estimated agricultural income at Rs.67 lakhs. However, the A.O rejected the report of Tahashildar and the Dean of Forestry Department that assessee has earned income from Casuarina crop, relying on Google Earth Pro data and estimated agriculture income at Rs 15,50,000. We are of opinion that the authenticated documents such as the certificate from the Tahsildar and the expert report of the Dean of Forestry Department cannot be ignored in preference to unverified Google Earth Pro images. We, therefore set aside the order LD CIT(A)/A.O and direct the A.O to pass fresh assessment order on the basis of report of the Dean of Forestry Department available on record, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1162/Chny/2025 Manjula :- 6 -: assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail. In light of above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th day of September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0011ाियक सद / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 29th September, 2025. EDN/- आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "