Manju Devi Begani Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
Surat ITAT considered several additions including ₹2,23,207 disallowed u/s 14A, ₹76,24,846 treated as bogus agricultural income u/s 68, & ₹11,43,727 estimated as agricultural expenses. Assessee filed manual appeal in time in 2016, later e-filed due to amended Rules, resulting in a technical delay of 35 days.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without appreciating the explanation & passed a non-speaking order without examining merits. Tribunal held that CIT(A) erred in ignoring valid reasons for delay & condoned the same. Tribunal restored the entire matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all issues after proper verification, directing that Assessee be given adequate opportunity of hearing. Appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 23.05.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the same without appreciating the fact that there was no delay in filing the appeal of the assessee as the assessee had originally filed appeal manually in time on 02.05.2016 but subsequently again filed the e-appeal electronically in view of amendment in IT, Rules which mandated the e-filing of appeal.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,23,207/- on account of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 76,24,846/- on account of bogus agricultural income as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld, assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 11,43,727/- @ 15% of addition made of agricultural income of Rs.76,24,846/- on account of bogus agricultural expenses treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
5. It is therefore prayed that additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.
6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in course of hearing of the appeal.”
3. The assessee filed return of income on 27.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 17,88,980/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 09.09.2014 was issued on questionnaire along with notice dated 18.11.2015 was also issued to the assessee. The Authorised Representative of the assessee contended the assessment proceedings and furnished the details. The assessee derived income from agricultural and interest income during the year under consideration. After going through the details the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of Rs. 2,23,207/- and also made addition on account of bogus agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 87,68,573/- under Section 68 of the Act.
