KASTURI DEVI,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ETAH
Facts
The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 47,41,469/-, which was significantly higher than the Rs. 14,97,550/- declared in the previous year. The assessee attributed this increase to inheritance of land and using existing seeds, showing zero expenses. The Assessing Officer added the income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing evidence to support the substantial increase in agricultural income. The lack of documentary evidence regarding land holdings, yield, and income, especially given the significant year-on-year jump, led to the conclusion that the income was not sufficiently explained.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 47,41,469/- as unexplained agricultural income was justified, considering the lack of supporting evidence and the substantial increase from the previous year.
Sections Cited
68, 143(3), 142(1), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 07/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21
Kasturi Devi, Sector-3, GT Road, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Etah (UP). Ward 4(3)(1), Etah. PAN : ACAPD1171D (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 15.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10181192 by
the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed
assessee’s first appeal. 2. At the very outset, we notice that this second appeal was filed on 03.01.2025 against impugned order dated 06.05.2024 by a delay of about
ITA No.07/Agr/2025
182 days. None has turned up for the assessee to press upon her delay
condonation application, which has been moved on the ground that the 80
years old appellant lady was under the treatment of jaundice and hepatitis.
On receipt of medical certificate, the appeal memo file got mixed up with
other case files of the assessee’s counsel. Hence, the appel could not be
filed in time. The delay is bonfide and beyond the control of the appellant.
Delay condonation application is supported with the affidavit filed by one
Prakash. The grounds mentioned in the delay condonation application
supported with the said affidavit remained un-controverted, hence, treated
as sufficient. The delay caused in filing this appeal stands condoned.
Brief facts state that Smt. Kasturi Devi enjoys income from sale and
purchase of potatoes and garlic(Lahsun), pension income, agricultural
income and interest income. She filed her return of income for the
assessment year 2020-21 on 31.12.2020, declaring total income at
Rs.3,36,650/-. It was found that the assessee claimed large increase in
agricultural income at Rs.47,41,469/- in the latest ITR, which was thrice the
agricultural income of Rs.14,97,550/- declared in preceding return for A.Y.
2019-20. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued
and served upon assessee. Assessee submitted before the Assessing
Officer that due to death of her husband, Shri Bharat Singh Verma during
the financial year 2018-19, the agricultural land (53 bighas) of the 2 | P a g e
ITA No.07/Agr/2025
deceased husband was divided amongst her three sons and she equally
and assessee’s land holding was accordingly increased by 13.25 bighas.
Assessee further submitted copy of Hissa Praman Patra, copy of 6R for
sale of agricultural produce and further submitted that the assessee was
not purchasing seeds at every time for sowing the crop, rather last year’s
potato and garlic seed was used to sow the crop, stating that there was no
expense on the purchase of seeds, further explaining that the assessee
purchased fertilizers and pesticides in cash as and when required etc. Ld.
Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the response of the assessee for
want of bills of purchasing fertilizers and pesticides, proper and reliable
independent third party evidence, thereby rejecting assessee’s theory of
zero expenses and added the alleged agricultural income of
Rs.47,41,469/- u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained income.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals),
who also dismissed assessee’s appeal and confirmed the assessment
order.
Assessee has filed this second appeal before the Tribunal on the
following grounds :
That the Id. AO has erred in making addition of Rs.47,41,469/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Id. AO has erred in making addition of Rs.47,41,469/- on the basis of assumption and presumption which is not permissible in law and that too without controverting the supporting 3 | P a g e
ITA No.07/Agr/2025
documents filed against the sale of agriculture produce during the assessment proceeding in the form of Khatauni and Hissa Praman Patra for the proof of agriculture land and sale bills from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti got the proof of sale of agriculture produce.
That the Id.AO has erred in making addition without either bringing any material evidence on record or as result of any enquiry conducted to prove otherwise that the appellant has not earned income of Rs.47,41,469/- from sale of agriculture produce. 4. That the Id.AO has accepted the fact that the appellant has agricultural income from agricultural land in her own name which has been shown in the preceding years but he has doubted the quantum of increase in agricultural income but at the same time the Id.AO has erred in giving effect to the agriculture income earned this year in correspondence to the last preceding years and made addition on the basis of presumption without any basis u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which also establishes the prejudice and predetermined mind for making addition and brushing aside the documentary evidences filed. 5. That the Id.AO has erred in passing the assessment order without application of mind to the facts of the case and documentary evidences filed which could subsequently said to be examined in the light of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, moreover, the Id.AO has erred in applying section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which consequently would result the assessment order framed without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 6. That the Id.AO has erred in making addition and completing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without application of appropriate charging section under the chapter Aggregation of Income of which the addition is being made by the Id.AO resulting in gross violation of principle of Audi Alteram Partem. 7. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 47,41,469/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Ac, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case alongwith the documentary evidences filed before the appellate authority. …………………..”
4 | P a g e
ITA No.07/Agr/2025
Perused the records. None responded for the assessee to press the
appeal. Heard Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue. The order is being passed on
merits.
The sum and substance of all the grounds raised in assessee’s
appeal is as to whether ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the
addition of alleged agricultural income of Rs.47,41,469/- added vide
assessment order dated 21.09.2022.
We notice that assessee’s case was examined by the Assessing
Officer mainly on the ground that the agricultural income of Rs.47,41,469/-
shown for the assessment year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2020-21
was thrice the agricultural income of Rs.14,97,550/- shown by assessee in
her ITR for A.Y. 2019-20. The expenses for growing crops and sowing
seeds and purchasing fertilizers and pesticides was also shown zero by
the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Ld. Assessing Officer, thus
treated such sum routed through some unexplained sources through
agricultural income, which is exempt. Learned CIT(Appeals) has also
affirmed the conclusion of the Assessing Officer, reinforcing that out of 11
acres of total land held by assessee, 9.6 acre was held by her before she
got 1.4 acre in succession after the death of her husband. Ld.
CIT(Appeals) further observed that the appellant failed to furnish
necessary documentary evidences such as return of income filed for the 5 | P a g e
ITA No.07/Agr/2025
earlier years to establish that her late husband had earned agricultural
income from lands transferred to the appellant. No certificate from any
local authority could also be procured by assessee before first appellate
authority in support of the yield grown and income earned. Even before
this Tribunal, nothing has been brought on record to show that there was a
possibility of three times growth in the agricultural income in the
successive year on the above parcel of land. In absence of any cogent and
convincing evidence, we do not find any error of law or fact in the
impugned order passed by ld. CIT(Appeals) in dismissing assessee’s first
appeal. Aforesaid question is accordingly determined against the assessee
and in favour of the revenue. Assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26.11.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
6 | P a g e
