What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly examine the revenue records to justify the disallowance. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.88 Lakhs was deemed just and proper, with the condition that it would not set a precedent.

The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed a portion of the assessee's agricultural income claim of Rs. 21.68 Lakhs, making an addition of Rs. 6.88 Lakhs on an estimated basis. The assessee had claimed agricultural income from 24 acres of land.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of agricultural income was justified without proper examination of revenue records. The extent of disallowance of claimed agricultural income.

Nandini Singla, Rohtak vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 20.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3821/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nandini Singla Maa Gayatri Complex, Ward-3, 17-L, Model Town, Rohtak- 124001 Rohtak, Haryana Haryana- 124001 PAN: ARGPS1910K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Rajneesh Mulick, AR Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR[Through VC]

Date of hearing 20.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Rohtak’s order dated 23.03.2018 passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2017-18/1009378667(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

ITA No.3821/Del/2018

It is evident during the course of hearing that he able assistance came from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s agricultural income claim of Rs. 21.68 Lakhs to the extent of Rs. 6.88 Lakhs on estimation basis, in assessment order dated 29.03.2016 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. It is made clear that the learned Assessing Officer has himself accepted the assessee’s claim of having derived agricultural income amounting to Rs. 4.8Lakhs from 24 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per unit thereby disallowing the remaining amount in question. That being the case, it is noticed that there is not even an iota of discussion in both the learned lower authorities respective findings as to whether they had actually examined the assessee’s corresponding revenue records including khasra, girdawari etc, regarding the crops grown at her behest. The fact also remains that the assessee appears to have failed in not pleading and proving the corresponding revenue records to the entire satisfaction of both

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3821/Del/2018

the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, keeping in mind totality of the relevant facts herein, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 1.88 Lakhs only in the assesse’s hand would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee/appellant gets relief of Rs. 15 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th April, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

NANDINI SINGLA,ROHTAK vs. ITO, WARD- 3, ROHTAK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments