CHANDER PAL ,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 1(3), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1006/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 April 2026AY 2017-184 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 the AO's estimation of agricultural income was too low as it did not consider both Rabi and Kharif crops. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's agricultural income at Rs. 10,50,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, declared Rs. 20,50,000/- as agricultural income but later claimed it was a mistake and the actual income was Rs. 10,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 5,00,000/- based only on wheat crop.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly estimated the agricultural income of the assessee, and if a mistake in declaring income in the return can be rectified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 23/03/2026Pronounced: 24/04/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.1006/धिल्ली/2026 (धि.ि. 2017-18) ITA No.1006/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18)

Chander Pal, 592, VPO-Indri, Mewat, B.O, Badhelaki, Gurgaon, Haryana 122103 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AUVPP-3400-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Arpit Goyal, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (Through VC) सुििाई की धिधर्थ/Date of hearing : 23/03/2026 घोषणा की धिधर्थ/Date of pronouncement : 24/04/2026 आिेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bengaluru [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 19.11.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee in appeal has assailed addition of Rs.15,50,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3.

Shri Arpit Goyal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is an agriculturist. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring agricultural income of Rs.20,50,000/-. Inadvertently in the Return of Income, the assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.20,50,000/- instead of Rs.10,50,000/-. Thus, excess agricultural income of Rs.10,00,000/- was declared by the assessee in the return of income. In support of this submission, the assessee

2 ITA No. 1006/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) furnished an affidavit of Shri Manish Kumar, who has purportedly filed assessee’s return of income for AY 2017-18.

The ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) while determining agricultural income at Rs.5,00,000/- has taken into consideration only wheat crop. Whereas, the assessee has been cultivating the land throughout the year and has agricultural income from cultivation of paddy also. To substantiate his argument, he referred to khasra girdawari at page no. 20 of the paper book. The ld. AR further pointed that in the preceding assessment years i.e. AY 2018-19, the assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.14,78,195/- and in AY 2019-20 Rs.12,87,760/- and the same were accepted by the Department. He thus, prayed for deleting the addition and accepting agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.10,50,000/-.

3.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently defending the impugned order prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

4.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has not accepted assesses’ claim of agricultural income of Rs.10,50,000/- from cultivate of land admeasuring 10 acres. The AO referring to the Five Year Average yield and production targeted from FY 2013-14 to 2017-18 available on the website of Department of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Haryana estimated total agricultural income of assessee at Rs.5,00,000/- per year. The said estimation is only in respect of wheat crop. As is evident from khasra girdawari placed on record, the assessee has also cultivated paddy. Thus, the total annual agricultural income has to be determined after considering Rabi and Kharif crops. The assessee in order to further substantiate

3 ITA No. 1006/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) total agricultural income has also placed on record copies of Form J at pages 7 to 13 of the paper book. The aggregate of agricultural produce sold by the assessee as per Form J available on record is Rs.9,62,217/-. Thus, I find merit in the submissions of the assessee to the extent that the agricultural income of the assessee determined by the AO was very much on the lower side.

5.

In so far as the assessee’s contention that in the return of income, agriculture income has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.20,50,000/- instead of Rs.10,50,000/-, the right course of action for rectifying the mistake was by way of filing revised return. Nevertheless, the assessee cannot the left remedy less for wrongly declaring excessive agricultural income in the return of income. It is a trait law that tax can be collected only as per law. If an assessee under a mistake, misconception on in absence of proper guidance offers excess income, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. The income offered to tax by the assessee in original return would or in revised return not ipso facto bar an assessee from claiming an expense/deduction/exemption or disputing an income, if it is otherwise permissible under law. After considering entire factual matrix and the affidavit of Shri Manish Kumar who has purportedly filed assessee’s return of income for AY 2017-18, the AO is directed to consider assessee’s agricultural income for AY 2017-18 at Rs.10,50,000/-.

6.

In the result, the addition of Rs.15,50,000/- u/s.69A of the Act is directed to be deleted.

4 ITA No. 1006/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्याधयक सिस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, धििांक/Dated 24/04/2026

NV/- प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रधििािी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आय.अपी.अधि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 4. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →