“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

Usman Vali Patel, Bharuch Gujarat vs. Ward 1(2), Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. Ito, A-14 Assd Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aykpp8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

account of unexplained money and added to the total income. In absence of documentary evidence, assessee’s agricultural income of Rs.4,10,500/- was also rejected by AO. He assessed the total income of Rs.7,50,500/- as against returned income Rs. Nil. 7. Aggrieved by the order

Harkesh Singh, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambala

ITA 1021/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankush Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147

Assessment Year 2011- 12. In compliance with the notices issued pursuant to the reopening, the assessee filed his return of income declaring agricultural income of Rs.1,28,560/- only. 3.1 During the course of Assessment proceedings, the Appellant contended that out of total cash deposits

Jambagi Laxman Siddappa (HUF), Raibag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Belagaum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.215/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Jamgagi Laxmansiddappa Huf Vs Ito-Ward-1(4), Ashirwad Nursing & Maternity Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Home, Civil Hospital Road Harugeri, Raibag Dist, Belagavi-590001. Belagavi-591222, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Aafhj4272E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of agriculture income made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2016-17 ... disclosing agricultural income of Rs.36,63,742/- and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS to 2 ITA. No. 215/PAN 2025. Jambagi Laxman Siddappa HUF verify the claim of agricultural income. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has issued the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec142

Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran, Pachalam, Kochi vs. ITO, Non. Corp. Ward-1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 634/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aravind and Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

declaring total income Rs.5,90,930/-. The assessee declared income exempted from taxation for sum of Rs.1,43,51,307/- which is included the agricultural income of Rs.20,000/-, share of profit from partnership firm Rs.2,16,589/- and exempted long term capital gain amount to Rs.1

Sar Senapati Umabai Dabhade Nagari Sahakari Patsansta Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT-3, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay S. SuryawanshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

High liabilities as compare to low income/receipts; (iii) Large commission expenses and low net profit and (iv) Low income (including exempt income and agricultural income in comparison to high loans/advances/investment in shares appearing in balance sheet. Accordingly, statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were

Sree Satya Prakash Nalamati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1431/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 69A

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. The authorities below failed to the basic fact that the fertile wet agricultural lands would fetch minimum agricultural income and that the appellant's family is holding about Acres 57.2 gts of agricultural lands. (Tax Effect: Rs.13,93,382) 4. Any other ground ... failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim that the subject cash deposits of Rs. 18,03,730/- was sourced out of his agricultural income. Accordingly, the CIT(A) found no infirmity in the view taken by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

Parvesh Sharma, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1388/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Parvesh Sharma,……………………………...……Appellant 106, B.T. Road, Rajbari, Bonhooghly, Kolkata-700108, West Bengal [Pan:Bmpps3173Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, W.B.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 24

assessee through ITBA electronically. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from capital gain and income from other sources along with agricultural income. The assessee furnished copy of purchase deed of properties and copy of rent agreement of let out property. On query, the assessee replied that

Sahara India Corp Investment Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 1750/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1750/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Sahara India Corp Investment Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, I-Kapoorthala Complex, Vs. Central Circle–1, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan: Aaacs1707R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Sh. Arpit Goyal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.06.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

source is exempt from tax, then loss from such source cannot be set off against any other income which is chargeable to tax. E.g., Agricultural income is exempt from tax, hence, if the taxpayer incurs loss from agricultural activity, then such loss cannot be adjusted against any other taxable income

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

passed on 30.12.2011, in which, inter alia, the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act, on account of agricultural income of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, was denied by the AO and the A.O. treated the same as business income (relevant paras

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Mahendra Singh Rathore, Bilara vs. Ld. AO Ward 3(5), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 515/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed Major Additions Except Partly Allowing Deduction U/S 80C.

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 69ASection 80C

necessary supporting documents such as audited books of account u/s 44AB, confirmations of unsecured loans, receipts from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, and proof of agricultural income, if one more opportunity is granted. 5.3 The Ld. AR therefore prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be set aside

Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for e appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 660/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Jitendrakumarambelal Patel Ito, Ward-3, 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Room No. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 Pan No. Bncpp 7509 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessee Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual and and has shown his main source of income his main source of income as agricultural income. During the gricultural income. During the year, the assessee year, the assessee purchased agricultural Land at gricultural Land at ‘Pananj’ Village, Tahsil ‘Chikhli Chikhli’, District

Karuvoth Pariyayi, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 603/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Karuvoth Pariyai .......... Appellant M/S. Kannankandy Sales Corporation Indira Gandhi Road, Kozhikode [Pan: Afjpp8835J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Raghunathan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 02.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 12,85,160/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Kozhikode (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 18.11.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 47,10,240/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

total income of Rs. 47,10,240/-. While doing so, the AO made 2 Karuvoth Pariyai addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- disbelieving the agricultural income claimed to be exempt and also made addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- being the cash deposits made in specified bank notes (SBN) during ... assessee submits before us that the appellant owns agricultural land and in earlier assessment years, in the scrutiny assessment, the AO had accepted the agricultural income of Rs. 10,00,000/- and, therefore, in the absence of any change of circumstances, the AO ought not have disbelieved the agricultural income

Vishal Gift Centre - LLP, Indore vs. ACIT Central Circle - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2014-15 u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs. 10,81,630/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,11,500/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny under ‘CASS’ and the AO issued statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142 ... returned income and accordingly determining the total income at Rs. 2,65,18,029/-. The AO, however, accepted agricultural income of Rs. 2,11,500/- as declared by assessee in the return of income. Aggrieved by AO’s order, the assessee went in first-appeal. During first-appeal, the assessee

Shri Babu Lal, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.203/Lkw/2020 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Babu Lal V. Dcit, Range-6 205, Amar Shaheed Path, 3Rd Floor, P. K. Complex, Aurangabad Jagir, Lucknow- 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan 226009. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Afdpl7463G अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

agriculturalist and main source of his income was through agricultural activities till financial year tear 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. Since agricultural income was exempted income under the income tax Act, the appellant did not file any return of income till 2012-13. There after started business ... been dismissed purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The Ld. CIT(A) has not given any clear finding as to why the agricultural income declared by the assessee is not acceptable. Therefore, looking to the facts of the case, we deem it fit and proper to set aside

Sachin Bhagwanrao Joshi, Palam vs. ITO Ward-1, Parbhani

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2634/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bashiruddin ShaikhFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

individual and had filed his return of income u/s 44AD on 31.03.2021 at an income of Rs.2,98,905/-. Assessee has also shown agricultural income of Rs.38,26,580/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issue of agricultural income shown by the 2 assessee. Statutory notices ... sales of other products. It was also replied by the assessee that he is neither in possession of any agricultural land nor having any agricultural income. Due to the copy paste mistake of the tax consultant office clerk/accountant, an amount of Rs.38,26,580/- was shown as agricultural income. Being

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru vs. Mohammed Farooq Kanana, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Ito, Vs. Mr. Mohammed Farooq Kanana, 6 9Th Cross, H Siddaiah Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027, Karnataka. Pan : Abvpm 1212 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Thirumala Naidu, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Thirumala Naidu, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 147Section 250

following grounds;- 1. The learned CIT(A), NaFAC has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of agricultural income, despite the fact that the assessee failed to furnish complete and reliable documentary evidence to substantiate the claim. 2. The learned CIT(A), NaFAC ... assessment proceedings, the assessee has not submitted the receipts from contractors or proper bills/vouchers to support the Page 2 of 15 quantum of agricultural income declared, which was duly admitted by the Authorized Representative of the assessee during the video conference. 3. The learned CIT(A), NaFAC has erred

Sameer Ramesh Vashi, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sameer Ramesh Vashi Vs The Principal Commissioner 702, Samrock Apartment, C.D. Of Income Tax, Barfiwala Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai-17 Mumbai - 400058 [Pan: Aaapv6356Q] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order Of Pcit, Mumbai–17, Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024- 25/1070374871(1), Dated 14.11.2024 Passed U/S. 263 Against The Assessment Order By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 14.03.2023 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Pcit, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 & Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dt 24-03-2021 Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Hence Directed The Ao To Reframe The Assessment.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

business loss of Rs.1,24,19,223/-. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify - i. business loss ii. agriculture income. 3.1. Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings issued notices u/s. 142(1) to which assessee furnished detailed replies, all of which ... assessee. Further, it was contended that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the business loss and agriculture income. On the applicability of provisions of accounting standard IND AS-115, assessee submitted that it applies only to the companies and not to the individual proprietary

Rishi Raj, Gaddi Choopad, Pahaladpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6022/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Rishi Raj, Vs Income Tax Officer, Kharkhoda, Ward-5, Sonipat, Haryana-131001 Sonipat, Haryana-131001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awopr6954Q Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

case, the necessary inference which would arise in such an instance is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represent the assessee’s agricultural income derived from the foregoing agricultural lands. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1

Bhupinder Singh Sidhu(HUF), Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1024/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1024/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhupinder Singh Sidhu Huf, The Ito, बनाम House No. 1114, Sector 69, Ward 4(1) Mohali Chandigarh Vs. Punjab160069 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaghb9562C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. M.R. Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Add. Cit Dr, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 4.7.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Add. CIT DR, Sr.DR

Section 143

Assessing Officer as upheld by the CIT(A) estimating the income from 40 acrs of agricultural land at Rs 1000000/- against the net returned agriculture income at Rs 3700000/- (Rs. 6000000/-, Rs. 2300000/- expenses) more so when the receipts and expenses are all through the banking channels ... scrutiny assessment under the category CASS. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under the category CASS 1024/Chd/2025 Bhupinder Singh Sidhu (HUF), Mohali 3 "agriculture income". Accordingly, notice uls 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.06.2021 was issued and duly served upon the assessee electronically. Vide above