BALAKRISHNAMURTHY RAMACHANDRABABU,DODBALLAPURA vs. DCIT 3(3)(1)- BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 2258/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 August 2026AY 2022-236 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the APMC sale bills, issued by a government-controlled market committee, coupled with land ownership records, sufficiently supported the claim of agricultural income. The absence of detailed expense records or specific crop mentions in land records was not sufficient to reject the claim, especially for small-scale agricultural activities.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited cash into his bank account, claiming it as agricultural income from selling vegetables and fruits. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this explanation, citing lack of details in land records and absence of expense receipts, and treated the deposits as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits claimed as agricultural income are to be treated as unexplained money when supported by APMC sale bills and land ownership, despite minor discrepancies in land records and lack of expense receipts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 05/09/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2022-23. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and earned income from salary and from other sources and filed his return of income on 25/07/2022. The case of the assessee was selected fo

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →