Venkatachalam Elangovan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Chennai ITAT: Agricultural Income Claim Cannot Be Rejected Without Fair Opportunity to Produce Evidence
The Chennai ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(A) confirming additions under section 69A in respect of agricultural income claimed as exempt under section 10(1). The Assessing Officer had treated the assessee’s agricultural income as unexplained money on the ground that, although land records (Chitta/Adangal) were furnished, the assessee failed to produce complete evidence regarding agricultural operations, income and expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, noting that the assessee had failed to effectively prosecute the appeal.
The Tribunal held that, in the interests of natural justice, the assessee should be afforded one more opportunity to substantiate the claim of agricultural income with supporting evidence. Accordingly, it set aside the orders of the CIT(A) for both assessment years and restored the matters for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to cooperate and furnish all relevant evidence in support of the claim.
Cases Discussed
- Chemipol v. Union of India
- B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another, 118 ITR 461
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
The captioned appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] both dated 12.12.2025 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2020-21 and 2021-22.
2. Brief facts of the case: The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2020-21 on 30.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.1,42,210/-and claimed exempt agricultural income of Rs.87,72,287/-.The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) read with section 144B.The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the agricultural income claimed by the assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A and made an addition of Rs.87,72,287/- assessing the total income at Rs.89,14,500/-.The assessee claimed exemption u/s. 10(1) in respect of agricultural income. During assessment, the assessee furnished copies of Chitta/Adangal records but failed to furnish complete details and supporting evidence called for by the Assessing Officer regarding agricultural operations, income, and related expenditure. Holding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim of agricultural income, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of Rs.87,72,287/- as unexplained income u/s. 69A and added the same to the total income.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A).The CIT(A) observed that although the assessee had filed the appeal, he failed to effectively pursue it by furnishing submissions or documentary evidence despite opportunities. Relying on the decisions in B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another (118 ITR 461) and Chemipol v. Union of India, the CIT(A) observed that an appeal must be effectively prosecuted and proceeded to decide the matter on merits based on the available record. On merits, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not produced any evidence to substantiate the claim of exemption u/s. 10(1) or the agricultural expenses claimed. Accordingly, the CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action and confirmed the addition of Rs. 87,72,287 made u/s. 69A, dismissing the appeal.
Now assessee is in appeal before us.
4. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without granting an effective opportunity of being heard. It was contended that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the necessary evidences before the CIT(A).The assessee prayed that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity to produce supporting evidence regarding the claim of agricultural income.
5. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A).However, it was submitted that the issue may be decided in accordance with law.
6. Our findings for (AY 2020-21) ITA No.994/Chny/2026:
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We observe that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal substantially on the ground of non-prosecution and confirmed the addition without examining the merits of the claim based on supporting evidence. Considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee’s request for an opportunity to substantiate the claim, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A).Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh appellate adjudication, directing the ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and furnish all relevant evidence in support of the claim.
7. Our findings for (AY 2021-22) ITA No.995/Chny/2026:
Since the appeal for AY 2021-22 in ITA No. 995/Chny/2026 was also disposed of ex-parte by the ld.CIT(A), we hold that the directions issued while restoring the appeal for AY 2020-21 would apply mutatis mutandis to this assessment year as well. Accordingly, the order of the ld.CIT(A) was set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings.
8. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for the statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the day 31st of July, 2026 in Chennai.
