SUBAL CHANDRA NAG,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DHANBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 117/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 July 2026AY 2013-145 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that based on a previous decision for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, where similar disallowances were deleted, the current disallowance should also be deleted. The previous decision relied on a certificate from the Village Mukhia confirming agricultural land ownership and income.

What were the facts?

The assessee disclosed agricultural income, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee's appeal was delayed but admitted by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of agricultural income is justified, especially in light of previous favorable ITAT decisions for the same assessee on identical grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Chaudhary, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR
Hearing: 09/07/2026Pronounced: 09/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 117/Ran/2026 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Subal Chandra Nag, DCIT/ACIT, Kusum Vihar, Koyla Nagar, Circle-2, Vs. Dhanbad-826004 (Jharkhand) Dhanbad. PAN No. ABDPN 4274 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri Shubham Chaudhary, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 09/07/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) in Appeal No. CIT(A), Dhanbad/10221/2019-20 dated 18/07/2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Shri Shubham Chaudhary, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandipan Khan, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 511 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr.DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of ₹ 6,70,500/- for the impugned assessment year. It was the

ITA 117/Ran/2026 Subal Chandra Nag Vs DCIT/ACIT submission that the Assessing Officer disallowed the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) relying upon his findings for the A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 in the assessee's own case, confirmed the disallowance of the agricultural income as made by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that for the A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 92 & 93/Ran/2023 order dated 10/10/2025 has deleted the disallowance as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that on identical findings, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for the impugned assessment year is also liable to be deleted. 5. In reply, the ld. Sr.DR submitted that the each assessment year is separate and independent. It was the submission that the assessee has not provided the details before the Assessing Officer. He vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has reiterated the findings of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. A perusal of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 clearly shows that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has deleted the additions as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the learned. CIT(A). The Coordinate Bench in para 3 to 6 has held as follows: "3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs.6,12,500/- in the assessment year 2015-2016 and Rs.6,10,000/- in the assessment year 2014-2015. It was the submission that the AO had disallowed agriculture 2

ITA 117/Ran/2026 Subal Chandra Nag Vs DCIT/ACIT income disclosed by the assessee holding the same as assessee’s income from other sources. It was the submission that the AO himself has accepted for the assessment year 2014-2015 the gross sales of agriculture produce is at Rs.16,07,370/- and net agriculture income at Rs.6,10,000/-. Similarly, in the assessment year 2015-2016 the gross agricultural income has been accepted by the AO at Rs.17,34,240/- and calculated the net agricultural income at Rs.6,12,500/- It was the submission that the assessee owns 6 acres of agriculture land and the village mukhia has also given a certificate which reads as follows:-

ITA 117/Ran/2026 Subal Chandra Nag Vs DCIT/ACIT 4. It was the submission that from the above certificate issued by the Village Mukhia, it shows that the assessee owns 6 acres of agriculture land and he has a garden of mango, guava, other fruits and having pond from which fishes are taken in addition to that he harvests green vegetables, paddy and wheat. It was the submission that the fact that the assessee has agriculture income is proved by the certificate issued by the Village Mukhia, therefore, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for both the years under appeals deserves to be deleted. 5. In reply, ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the AO and ld. CIT(A). It was put to the ld. Sr. DR that if at all the agriculture income was being disbelieved then the gross receipts itself should have been removed from the profit and loss account of the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the certificate issued by the Village Mukhia clearly shows that the assessee owns 6 acres of agriculture land and is having agricultural income. This being so, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for both the years under consideration is liable to be deleted and we do so." Consequently, as there is no change in the facts and as the agricultural loan also remains the same, our finding in ITA No. 92 & 93/Ran/2023 for the A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of the assessee would apply mutatis mutandis to this assessment year also. Consequently, on the identical findings given for the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 referred to supra, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. 7. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 09/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 09/07/2026 *Ranjan

ITA 117/Ran/2026 Subal Chandra Nag Vs DCIT/ACIT Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →