“agricultural income”

Devanand Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (2), Patna

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 67/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Devanand Singh,……………..……..….………Appellant Baluan, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Adlps8382F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar

Representative and perusing the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who has shown agricultural income of Rs.7,05,000/- in the income tax return for the year under consideration. For genuineness of the claim of agricultural income, notices under ... section 133(6) of the Act were issued to the assessee for submission of required information/documents in support of agricultural income but he failed to furnish the same. Hence it was believed that the agricultural income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

Gurtej Singh Dandiwal, Village Barnala, Mansa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Mansa

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 558/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

during demonetisation period (amounting to Rs.9.50 lakhs in HDFC Bank, Mansa A/c no. XXXXXX50235). The return filed by the assessee, declaring NIL income and agricultural income at Rs.13.2 lakhs was selected for scrutiny under I.T.A. No. 558/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 CASS. In absence of any response to notice ... subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1), the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.9.50 lakhs (plus Agricultural income as per return). 3.1 In course of appeal before the first appellate authority, written submissions were filed by the assessee, explaining the source of bank deposit to have come

Jagsir Singh, Village Virkkhera, Malout vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is an agriculturist and has filed return declaring total income of Rs.2,80,340/- (and agricultural income of Rs.2,30,000/-). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for investigating into the source of cash deposit of Rs.12 ... submissions of the assessee. The assessee in his submissions contended that the source of cash deposits was earlier cash withdrawals, cash receipts of agricultural income & from the business of purchase/sale of used cars. The assessee further submitted that the AO did not consider the submissions of the assessee and wrongly

Rajeswar Thakur, Bhawanipatna vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Sambalpur

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.143 & 144/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2014-2015) Rajeswar Thakur Pardeshpada, Near Balaji Temple Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi-766001 Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur Pan No. :Aaspt 7155 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 27.12.2024 For Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2014-2015.

with demand notice to the assessee. Not for assessee (Aron Kachhap) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Sambalpur. The assessee has shown agriculture income amounting to Rs. 3473700/-. The explanation was sought from the assessee. The assessee has shown agriculture income from sale of eucalyptus tree (in cash ... well as cheque). The agriculture income for the preceding two A/Ys has been shown as follows, which were accepted by the A.O. Rs. 4799098/- for (A/Y 2010-11), Rs. 4074000/- for (A/Y 2011-12) and Rs. 3473700/- for (A/Y 2012-13) and gup Therefore as discussed above, no adverse inference

Rajeswar Thakur, Bhawanipatna vs. Asstt.CIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.143 & 144/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2014-2015) Rajeswar Thakur Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur Pardeshpada, Near Balaji Temple Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi-766001 Pan No. :Aaspt 7155 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 27.12.2024 For Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2014-2015. 2. In This Appeal, It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Original Return Of The Assessee Was Filed On 27.09.2012, The Same Was Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 26.02.2015 Wherein Certain Additions Have Been Made. In The Assessment Order Under The Headnote “Not For The Assessee”, The Assessing Officer Has Mentioned As Follows :- 3. It Was The Submission That Subsequently On 05.12.2019, The Assessment Was Proposed To Be Reopened With The Following Reasons :-

with the following reasons :- ITA Nos.143&144/CTK/2025 ITA Nos.143&144/CTK/2025 4. It was the submission that the reopening was in fact challenge to the agriculture income declared by the assessee. It was the submission that the reopening was based on change of opinion. The Assessing Officer in the original proceedings ... considered the agricultural income of the assessee. The explanation of the assessee had been called for and the same have been accepted. The reopening consequently was clearly based on a change of opinion and no fresh evidence had come to the attention of the AO or in the possession

Nikulbhai Patel, Bharuch Narmada vs. The Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward 2(5), Bharuch

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has made detailed submission along with documentary evidences to show that the appellant is having only agricultural income and not having any other sources of income. The learned assessing officer has passed the order under section ... assessment proceedings but as per order no satisfactory, documentary evidences were submitted to corroborate its claim that the source of cash was its agriculture income. Even during the appellate proceedings, Nikulbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2011-12 - 4– appellant failed to brought on record any documentary evidence to substantiate

Sanjaykumar Arvindbhai Rupareliya L/H Arvindbhai Balubhai Rupareliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(2), Surat

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

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

payment, it cannot be said that all the right and possession were transferred to the purchaser. The CIT(A) noted that appellant had shown agricultural income during one year i.e., AY 2014-15 only. He has not shown any agricultural income during AY 2013-14. He has also not shown ... agricultural income in the subject AY i.e., 2015-16. The appellant could not produce any evidence, such as the crops cultivated, sale bills of agricultural produce etc., during the assessment or appellate proceedings. Though the land was in possession of assessee for 2 years, there was nothing to show that

Kosanam Rama Rao, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

assessee had e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 34,20,540/- along with agricultural income of Rs. 84,000/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3 Kosanam Rama ... taken or accepted and the person by whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted, are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under this Act. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "banking company" means a company