What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted that the deposits were partially sourced from agricultural income, considering the assessee's land holdings. However, the addition was restricted to Rs.1 Lac, with the remaining deleted. The addition was to be taxed at the normal rate.

The assessee appealed an order confirming an addition of Rs.10.04 Lacs in net cash deposits for AY 2017-18, made by the AO under section 144 and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed the deposits were sourced from agricultural income.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits were adequately explained as agricultural income and if the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified.

Siddharth Singh, Tota Ka Tal Agra vs ITO | ITAT Agra 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 283/Agr/2024

S.A. No. 02/Agr/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] on 29-05-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Act on 17-12-2019. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of net cash deposit for Rs.10.04 Lacs for want of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The registry has noted delay of 11 days in the appeal which stand condoned.

The Ld. AR advanced arguments to submit that the assessee is having sufficient agricultural land holdings and the cash deposits were sourced out of agricultural income. The Ld. AR drew attention to various documents i.e., Khatoni, land revenue bill, Kisan Bahi etc. in support of its submissions. Upon perusal of the same, the claim made by the assessee could be partially accepted. Considering the factual matrix and extent of land holding, we confirm addition to the extent of Rs.1 Lacs and delete the remaining addition. The same would be subjected to normal rate of tax as per the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT (WP (MD) No.2078 of 2020 dated 19-11-2024) holding that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. Therefore, the addition so made would be subjected to normal rate of tax only. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee. The connected stay application has been rendered infructuous.

The appeal stand partly allowed. The stay application stand dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. /sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23-04-2025 आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

SIDDHARTH SINGH,TOTA KA TAL AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(4) AGRA SHRI MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN AGRA

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