SUBAL CHANDRA NAG,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DHANBAD
Facts
The assessee disclosed agricultural income for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16, which the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed, treating it as income from other sources. This disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee presented a certificate from the Village Mukhia to substantiate the ownership of agricultural land and the nature of the income.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the certificate from the Village Mukhia clearly established that the assessee owned 6 acres of agricultural land and was deriving agricultural income. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for both assessment years were incorrect and liable to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether income declared by the assessee as agricultural income was exempt from tax or taxable as income from other sources.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची न्य यपीठ, र ाँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.92 & 93/RAN/2023 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015 & 2015-2016) Subal Chandra Nag, Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-2, Dhanbad Kusum Vihar, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826004 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : ABDPN 4274 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 10/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.10.2022 & 01.02.2023 for the assessment years 2014-2015 & 2015-2016. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 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 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
2 ITA No.92 & 93/Ran/23 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:-
3 ITA No.92 & 93/Ran/23 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. 7. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 10/10/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेख सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्य नयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER र ाँची Ranchi; दिनांक Dated 10/10/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
4 ITA No.92 & 93/Ran/23 आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- . 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकि आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. निभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकि अपीलीय अनर्किण, र ाँची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेश िुस र/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची / ITAT, Ranchi
