← All Phrases

“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
98
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
98
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

Anita, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

ITA 1451/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hitesh, Advocate

individual and filed her return of income (RoI) on 30.09.2016 declaring an income of ₹7,49,940/- And the assessee also reported agricultural income of ₹34,200/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. The AO noted that assessee is a financier and also she derives income from salary, house

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

that assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.8,10,450/-. As per the computation of income, assessee has disclosed agricultural income of Rs.4,75,624/-. The jurisdictional AO recorded the reason for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and after taking due approval

Jitendra Singh, Bijnor vs. Income Tax Officer, Bijnor

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhasstt. Year : 2015-16 Jitendra Singh, Vs. Acit/Jcit(Appeals) C/O S R Agarwalla & Co., Ca Faridabad / Nfac Shop No. 7, Kisan Inter College Market, Meerut-Karnal Road, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh-246776 (Pan: Ezaps4872M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Manish Singh, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit (A), Faridabad Dated 27.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16 On The Solitary Issue Of Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit. 2. Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Records. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Information Reported In Aims Module Of Itba That The Assessee Had Deposited More Than Rs. 10 Lacs In Different Saving Bank Accounts Maintained By Him During The F.Y. 2014-15 Relevant To Ay 2015-16. A Query Letter As Well As A Notice U/S. 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee Asking Him To Furnish The Source Of Income & Credit

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 69A

capital asset’), and the income from its sale is exempt under section 10(1) read with Section 2(1A) of the Act, being agricultural income. The cash deposits, therefore, represent explained sources and do not warrant treatment as unexplained under section 69A. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the orders

Nimmana Narasimharao, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

ITA 50/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 155BSection 69A

dated 06.05.2019, calling upon the assessee to produce his bank account statement, profit and loss account, statement of movable and immovable properties, proof of agricultural income (if any) and sources for the deposits. However, the assessee did not comply with the said specific directions of the AO. 4. Thereafter

Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 273/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.273/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Naga Hanuman Solvent Vs. Deputy Commissioner Oils (Pvt) Ltd., Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccn1547J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 33,87,382/- made by the AO by not granting exemption for agricultural income and treating the same as ‘income from other sources’. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Succinctly ... solvent oils had filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 27/11/2014 declaring an income of Rs. 78,08,455/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 33,87,382/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO -Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 770/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

rectification order”. 2.2 That in the aforesaid rectification application filed on 01.04.2022 through ITBA portal the assessee claimed that the tax rebate on the agriculture income was not given by the Ld. A.O for the year under consideration while computing the tax liability. The assessee however did not submit ... exemption U/s 10(23C)(v) of the Act without having any registration certificate. The assessee claimed in his reply that it was by mistake.  Agriculture Income of Rs 3,64,389/- was shown by the assessee and tax rebate Rs 1,09,317/- on agriculture income in already provided

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO-Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 769/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

rectification order”. 2.2 That in the aforesaid rectification application filed on 01.04.2022 through ITBA portal the assessee claimed that the tax rebate on the agriculture income was not given by the Ld. A.O for the year under consideration while computing the tax liability. The assessee however did not submit ... exemption U/s 10(23C)(v) of the Act without having any registration certificate. The assessee claimed in his reply that it was by mistake.  Agriculture Income of Rs 3,64,389/- was shown by the assessee and tax rebate Rs 1,09,317/- on agriculture income in already provided

Vivek Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 897/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

taken from above named Sharda Devi, r/o village Kheda Sandhan, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, an affidavit duly signed and sworn by Sharda Devi, proof of agricultural income of Sharda Devi in the nature of a Sale Memo dated 09/04/2012 of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bharatpur, Rajasthan and a copy

Sunhari Lal Yadav, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4), Kanpur

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

ITA 247/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunhari Lal Yadav V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4) 5, Meerpur Cantt, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Meerpur, Pin-208001. Kanpur-208001. Tan/Pan:Abepy8185F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. DR
Section 144Section 69A

appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.2,63,100/- on account of agricultural income ignoring the fact that the agricultural income is exempt under the Act. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1106/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

Rs.10,000 was imposed. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), and contended that the cash deposits were out of agricultural income, past savings, and withdrawals from the bank, and that the FDRs and related interest belonged to family members ... under section 69A was unjustified. Out of this, Rs.10,60,000 represented cash deposits in the bank account which were explained as arising from agricultural income, past savings, and withdrawals, while the balance pertained to FDRs jointly held with family members along with accrued interest. It was contended that

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1105/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

Rs.10,000 was imposed. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), and contended that the cash deposits were out of agricultural income, past savings, and withdrawals from the bank, and that the FDRs and related interest belonged to family members ... under section 69A was unjustified. Out of this, Rs.10,60,000 represented cash deposits in the bank account which were explained as arising from agricultural income, past savings, and withdrawals, while the balance pertained to FDRs jointly held with family members along with accrued interest. It was contended that

Kotti Chandraprakash, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, being devoid of any

ITA 780/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 153CSection 69A

establish that the impugned cash arose out of his genuine business transactions. Also, his alternate plea that part of the amount represented gifts and agricultural income is found to be unsubstantiated. We are of a firm conviction that a mere declaration in the return of income cannot by itself establish

Kodiyalam Floriculture Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1804/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T Srinivasa C AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue
Section 143Section 69A

cultivation and sale of flowers such as roses etc. Assessee filed its return of income at the total income of ₹ 12,180/– and in agricultural income of ₹ 3,958,659/– was shown. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny and which culminated into the assessment order wherein assessee

Bansi Lal Kumhar, Udaipur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

made by the Id. AO on account of cash deposited in the bank account during the year as unexplained money in place of agriculture income i.e by denying the agriculture income of the assessee. The Ld. AO and CIT(A) both have also erred in not considering the vital facts ... account of cash deposited in the bank account during the year as unexplained money rejecting the source of rental income and agricultural income. - 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has explained in the source of the cash deposited in his bank account

Manjula, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward I

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

ITA 1162/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1162/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr S Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

reply was filled in response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act stating that assessee is seasonal agriculturist and she gets only agriculture income and therefore, has not filed return of income. The assessee also submitted that she realized amount Rs.93 Lakhs from agriculture activities and the cash deposit ... bank account well Manjula :- 4 -: before the demonetization period. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in support her stand of earning agriculture income has placed on record the certificate obtained from Tahsildar, Villupuram and further placed on record the revenue records for substantiating the availability of cash from

Rangappa Byrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1648/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar L., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue
Section 115BSection 143Section 144Section 234Section 250Section 250(6)Section 4Section 69A

calling for the details. 4. The assessee in its reply filed on 19/9/2019 has stated that he is having income from house property and agricultural income only. He has also stated that ₹ 552,000 out of the cash deposit of ₹ 593,000 during the demonetisation period is out of jewellery ... 5/11/2016 which is evidenced in his bank account statement and the same is accepted. He has also stated that he has income from agricultural income of ₹ 369,500. The assessee was requested to produce details of agricultural income like details of agricultural land holding etc. which was not produced

Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

related party during F.Y. 2015-16. Regarding the nature of land and agriculture activity on it, he submitted that the assessee has duly earned agriculture income in the preceding 4/5 years. Appellant’s copy of ITR and computation of income for the AY. 2014-15 to AY 2016-17 reflected ... agriculture income and in addition to this, copy of 7/12 and 8A submitted also confirmed agricultural activity on the said land. Further, the said land is agricultural land as per land revenue records. The assessee had duly submitted certificate from Mamlatdar as evidence of said land to be agriculture land

Kantibhai Dhirubhai Gajera, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

ITA 950/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.950/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Kantibhai Dhirubhai Gajera Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), बनाम/ 12, Gandhivihar Society, L H Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Road, Varachha, Surat- 395 Gate, Surat-395 001 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adopg3063E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

duly disclosed” with the reason description being “large investment in property as compared to total income and total income including exempt income and agricultural income”. In compliance to the notices issued by AO, details were filed by the assessee from time to time. It was noticed that during the relevant

Laxmanji Javanji Dodiya, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 593/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 144Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 54FSection 68

that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23 on 31.07.2022 declaring income of Rs.5,41,900/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,89,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify the deduction claimed under Section 54F of Laxmanji Javanji Dodiya vs. ITO Page

Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel), Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 242/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2015. It was found that the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs.20,56,625/- during the year. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer called for details of agricultural receipts, expenses incurred ... earn agriculture income, details of land holding, nature of crop grown etc. Before the Assessing Office, the assessee could produce agricultural receipt of Rs.19,43,780/- only and evidence of agricultural expense of Rs.5,50,131/- was also brought on record. Thus, the net agricultural income of the assessee