“agricultural income”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(1A) / Rule 7, 7A, 7B(1), 7B(1A), 82,868 judgments

The decision most relied on for agricultural income is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on agricultural income

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.

389 ITR 68 · 2016 · High Court

192

citing judgments

Income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to its core activities and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

414 ITR 67 · 2019 · High Court

190

citing judgments

The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that a co-operative bank or society is not entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act if it provides loans to non-members. This decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

298 ITR 349 · 2008 · High Court

187

citing judgments

Cash receipts from customers against genuine delivery of goods or services cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The case also provides guidance on non-disallowance under Section 40A(3) for business payments made in specific contexts like agricultural markets.

Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer

154 Taxmann.com 305 · 2023 · Supreme Court

136

citing judgments

Section 80P(4) is not applicable to a cooperative bank unless it is classified as a 'bank' under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. For cooperative banks not meeting this definition, the deduction for interest earned from investments in cooperative societies is available under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy

32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court

132

citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

Sabarkhanta Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. ClT

203 ITR 1027 · 1993 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Co-operative societies or banks engaged in both agricultural and non-agricultural activities are entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, limited only to the profits derived from agricultural activities, not 100% of their gross profits.

CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

301 ITR 384 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition cannot be made under Section 68 for cash credits if it is established that the credits do not pertain to the impugned assessment year but relate to earlier assessment years.

Judgments citing agricultural income

Shri. Hitendra C Ghadia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7218/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

Section 292CSection 69A

appellate proceedings the assessee however In the appellate proceedings the assessee however argued that Sh argued that Shri Bharat Dholariya was earning was earning agricultural income and own some land in respect of agricultural income and own some land in respect of agricultural income and own some land in respect ... income are never disclosed to the Department. Further income are never disclosed to the Department. Further it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did Shri

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Dilip B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 2349/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 138/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

decisions shows that they have been rendered on different sets of facts. In the case of Smt. Padmavathi, the assessee was in receipt of agricultural income which the Court held to be a reasonable source of cash deposits claimed to be out of earlier withdrawals. In the case of Vanitha

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 137/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2306/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2305/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

A.Ramesh, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 15, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1838/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri A. Ramesh, The Deputy Commissioner Of 21, North Crescent Road, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai -17. Corporate Circle 15, Chennai. [Pan:Aeppr4222Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri C. Ramesh Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 30.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In This Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Whether The Agricultural Land Sold By The Assessee Is Liable For Capital Gain Tax Or Exempt From Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 2(14)

fall within the scope of capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and the agricultural income earned by the assessee was used for captive consumption. After examining the above explanations, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has not admitted ... agricultural income for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 and therefore, the assessee has not utilized the said lands for carrying out agricultural activities. The Assessing Officer has further observed that so far as agricultural produce used for own consumption, the assessee has not produced any evidence such

Sri Satish C Kandkur, Yadgir vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalaburagi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 133ASection 68Section 69

confirming addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act disbelieving the claim of the appellant as he derived agricultural income. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the Assessing Officer's restriction of the quantum of agricultural ... urged at the time of hearing 4. Facts of the case that the AO inter-alia made the addition of Rs.1 crore treating the agricultural income declared by the assessee as non-agricultural income and also addition of Rs.15 lakhs u/s 69 of the Income

Sri.Satish C.Kandkur, Yadgir vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gulbarga

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 133ASection 68Section 69

DCIT, Chennai vs. K.Dhandapani and Co. Ltd., Chengalput

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45

assessee, sale of agricultural produce etc. 2.5 It is verified from the returns filed by the assessee that the assessee company has not offered agricultural income for the AYs 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2011-12 and in this assessment year and the CIT(A) failed to note this important fact ... claim despite specifically calling for vide this office letter u/s. 142(1) dated 09.01.2015 and also during the course of assessment proceeding. Moreover, no agricultural income was admitted in the return of income to claim that "electrical goods manufacturing company" has been carrying on the agricultural operation nor produced

Umesh A Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143Section 250Section 28Section 30Section 37

from Other Sources’ of Rs.18,078/- and net loss of Rs.4,364/- under the head ‘Business Income’. The assessee had also claimed exemption of Agriculture Income of Rs.18,75,400/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order dated 25.11.2011 was passed under section ... appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Ground No. 2 7. The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.18,75,400/- received as Agricultural Income alleged to be undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act. The AO has rejected the assessee’s claim as exemption of Agricultural Income amounting

Dr. L.S. Ravi Prakash, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 78

from agriculture, professional consultancy and other streams of income. The assessee filed Return of income showing total income of Rs 38,75,550 and agricultural income of Rs 26,51,000. The assessee owns agricultural land at ITA No.30 /Bang/2021 Dr. L.S. Ravi Prakash, Bangalore Page 3 of 21 Bagandoddi

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

Further it is factually evident that the assessee has submitted all the relevant details with regard to cash deposits and agricultural income and the AO has in fact made additions with regard to the agricultural income. Merely because the order was not passed elaborately it would not be said that

Parthiban, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-7(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 562/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 562/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Parthiban, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 83-A, Door No. 9, Thiruvallur Non Corporate Ward 7(2), Street, Jagadhambigai Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 050. [Pan:Biipp0005R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Sitaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 14.07.2014 Returning Nil Income & Agricultural Income Of ₹.43,00,530/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Under 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(1)(A)

brief, that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 14.07.2014 returning NIL income and agricultural income of ₹.43,00,530/-. The case was selected through CASS and the assessment was completed under 2 I.T.A. No.562/Chny/20 section 143(3) of the Income ... reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 12.02.2019 for the following reasons: “During the period, you have an agricultural income of ₹.43,00,530/- which includes sale proceeds of Wood sales (Silver Oakes) – ₹.24,15,000/- and Fire wood – ₹.16,90,312/-. You have

Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 824/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.824 /Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ruchi Acroni Industries Vs. Dcit,Cc-7(2) Ltd., 611, Tulsiani Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Chambers, Nariman Aaykar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai – 21 Mumbai 20 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr6534R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 32.09 lakhs on account of agricultural income. ITA No.824/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 2 Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-7(2) Without prejudice to the above and alternatively 3. In the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in disallowing agricultural income amounting to Rs. 32.09 lakhs even though the learned Assessing Officer had allowed Rs. 5,11,686/- out of the above Rs. 32.09 lakhs and disallowed only the balance amount

Smt. Kumar Gomathi, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56(2)

from the assessee. In response to the specific question Nos.7-10, she admitted that source for purchase of property is out of her past savings, agricultural income and from the savings of her husband Mr.G.Kumar. She further admitted that investment in purchase of four properties was not disclosed and also agreed ... response to notice u/s.153C of the Act on 30.08.2018, the assessee claimed that source for purchase of property is out of her business income, agricultural income and savings of her husband. She further claimed that four properties were not recorded in her regular books of accounts and also not disclosed

P Prabhu, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3388/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3388/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri P. Prabhu, The Assistant Commissioner Of 29/C-2, Venkat Rathna Manor, Vs. Income Tax, Race Course, Coimbatore 641 018. Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aivpp2632E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee about cash deposit of ₹.4,40,000/-. The assessee has explained that agricultural income of previous year of ₹.13,49,730/- was retained in cash and a part of it of ₹.4,40,000/- was deposited in bank ... Assessing Officer was of the opinion that how the previous year agricultural income still available with the assessee and by not accepting the explanation of the assessee, the addition under section 68 of the Act for ₹.4,40,000/- was made. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition

Umamaheswari, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.527/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs.Umamaheswari, V. The Income Tax Officer, 12A, Perumal Konar Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), Vpc Nagar, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Abrpu 4791 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Erode Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Erode AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 69Section 69A

assessee is an individual filed her return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 07.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,37,090/- and agricultural income of Rs.7,83,000/-. The case has been selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment

Pochiraju Industries Limited, Hosur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1719/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)

further added a sum of Rs 1,70,01,985/- under the other sources treating the same as non agricultural income and whereby the returned loss of Rs 9,73,28,331/- has been reduced to a loss figure of Rs 5,92,11,272/-. The above action ... determined total loss of Rs. 5,92,11,272/- by making addition towards disallowance of expenditure incurred for scientific research and addition towards agricultural income. 4. The case has been subsequently taken up for revision proceedings by the PCIT, Salem u/s. 263 of the Act, and thus, a show cause

Muthusamy Arunadevi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward2(4), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 74/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri A.Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

land). We have attached the Certificate from Village administration officer from our corresponding Village. We do not have any other source of Income except Agricultural Income. Hence we humbly request you to delete the additions made by the Learned officer and render us Justice. We are also ready to provide ... mentioned. These documents are reproduced in the order of CIT(A) at pages 13 to 16. The assessee has also enclosed certificate regarding agricultural income per annum given by VAO which are reproduced at page 17 of CIT(A)’s order certifying that the assessee is having Rs.3 lakhs agricultural