UDAYSINH SUBHASHCHANDRA PATIL,SANGLI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - 1, SANGLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that rejecting the entire claim was inappropriate given the evidence of agricultural land. However, the low expenditure ratio was not in line with typical agricultural expenses.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 1.99 lakhs with only Rs. 17,899/- as expenditure. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the claim, treating it as income from undisclosed sources under Section 68, citing self-vouchers and unverifiable claims.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire agricultural income claim can be rejected under Section 68 due to insufficient expenditure evidence, and what is a reasonable expenditure ratio for agricultural income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur dated 05.09.2019 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
The effective ground raised
by the assessee is as under :- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition of Rs.1,99,000/- of agricultural income u/s 68 of the Act. He failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances in its proper perspective.”
3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of industrial rubber parts. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,50,420/-. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee claimed an agricultural income of Rs.1.99 lakhs in the return of income. Against the same, the assessee claimed expenditure of only Rs.17,899/-. The ratio works out to 9% of the agricultural income. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the claim of the assessee and treated the entire agricultural receipts as ‘income from undisclosed sources’ u/s 68 of the Act. Otherwise, the assessee furnished the 7/12 extracts reflecting the facts relating to the existing thick bamboo trees and growth of cashew nut trees. The assessee also furnished the evidence regarding the sale of bamboo and cashew. However, considering the self-vouchers and unverifiable of the claims of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the entire claim as agricultural income and taxed on the same u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the same.
4. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed various details in support of the existing of land, growth of crops, trees, sale of produce, etc. There is certificate of the agricultural production from Panchayat Committees. The assessee also furnished the invoices raised on sale of agricultural produce. The relevant accounting statements showing the agricultural produce were also furnished. The ld. Counsel submitted that the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected when there is ample evidence about the existing of land, growth of crops/trees.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026