“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

Asfiqbal Ismail Jangda, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 963/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 69A

cash deposits during the demonetization period amounting to ₹3,45,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted these despots were from agriculture income. However, upon examining the return of income filed for AY 2017-18, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not reported any agriculture ... made in HDFC Bank account and Rs. 2,00,000/- in the Indian Bank account, totaling to ₹3,45,000/-. Since no agriculture income was declared by the assessee in the return for the assessment year, these deposits were treated as unexplained and added to his total income under section

O E N India Limited, Kochi vs. DCIT, Corporate Cir 2(1), Kochi

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 861/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

appellant has earned exempt income of Rs.1,26,94,382 from the following heads, i.e., (i) Dividend from companies Rs.27,45,622, (ii) Agricultural income Rs.38,748, and (iii) Share of partnership firm Rs.99,10,012. Therefore, the AO called upon the appellant to explain as to why provisions ... sec.14A of the Act cannot be applied. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant submitted that in respect of agricultural income which is exempt u/s.10(1) of the Act, the expenditure incurred had been disallowed while computing taxable income. In response to the dividend income, the assessee contended

O E N India Limited, Kochi vs. ITO Corporate Ward-2(2), Kochi

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 860/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

O E N India Limited, Kochi vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Kochi

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 859/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. Shri Bhupinder Singh Talwar, Lucknow

Appeal is allowed

ITA 130/LKW/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A No.130/Lkw/2015

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 158BSection 271(1)(c)Section 292CSection 69

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was passed wherein assessee's total income was determined at Rs.3,62,39,693/- (plus Agricultural income of Rs.99,500/-). In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was made towards income from undisclosed sources invested in insurance premium

Mr. Bhagwan Shekuji Shejwal, Aurangabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1978/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1978/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Bhagwan Shekuji Shejwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Datta Nagar, Main Road, Aurangabad Ranjangaon Sp. Tq Gangapur, Aurngabad-431136 Pan : Brsps2318P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A Makawane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 13.06.2016 declaring income of Rs.1,80,013/- and agricultural income of Rs.96,425/-. Case selected for scrutiny and after validly serving the notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessment

Shri Ramniklal Hirji Patel, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2, Bhuj, Bhuj-Kutch

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

ITA 105/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 253(5)Section 50C

Assessed Income (R/O) | :- Rs. 50,32,842/- ITA No. 105/RJT/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Ramniklal Hirji Patel v. ITO Agricultural income for rate purpose | :- Rs. 8,32,081/- 6. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31.10.2017 in the office

Panwang Wangham, Ranglua, Kanubari vs. Income Tax Officer, Digboi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Ao, The Order Was Passed In An Exparte Manner.

Section 10(26)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in not allowing the benefit of exemption on agricultural income as per the Income Tax Act. 8. That your appellant craves the leave of your honour to add, amend or / and withdraw any grounds of appeal ... show that the assessee was covered under the provision of section 10(26) of the Act and that he had a justifiable source of agricultural income. In this way, the Ld. AR assailed the action of both

Dinesh Kumar Acharya, Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara, Baloda Bazar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.109/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Acharya 1, Main Road, Kasdol, Baloda Bazar-493 335 (C.G.) Pan : Afapa4354A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

assessee arising from the disclosed source of business. He further submitted that the assessee owns 8 acres of agricultural land and was deriving agricultural income therefrom and the same had been disclosed in the return of income of the assessee since F.Y.2013-14, the accumulation in savings are also from this ... trading of petroleum products nor the purchase/sales of the assessee. Further, the department had not disputed the books of account of the assessee a/w. agricultural income. The only grievance of the department is that the cash deposits of Rs.1,50,000/- was made during the demonetization period for which

Manisha Ashutosh Shewalkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 67/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

illegal, invalid and bad in law; 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC failed to consider that agriculture income were duly shown and accepted in previous years by revenue, therefore the order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 2 Manisha Ashutosh Shewalkar ... produce, payment made to the labour, name, address of the purchaser of the agricultural produce etc., and the assessee had also not offered any agricultural income or loss in the return of income filed for the preceding assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Ward Inspector was deputed

Venkata Sunil Battarushetty, Bangalore vs. DCIT., Circle- 1, Nellore

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

ITA 106/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.A.R

Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

money u/s 69A of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO erred in making addition on Agricultural Income of Rs. 25,00,022/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, without having any Bonafede belief which is incorrect and unjustified ... ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant is holding agricultural land, grown crops and earned agricultural income of Rs.25,00,022/-through such activities. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant earned agricultural income of Rs.25,00,022/- and the same

Dinesh Kumar, Agra vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 65/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 156

Punjab National Bank. The assessee runs a business of growing and selling of potatoes, millets, mustard and wheat and considers it as an agricultural income. The cash deposits made during the AY 2012-13 were out of opening cash held by the assessee, sales made during the year along with

Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO WD-2(1)(5), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/RJT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 68

account and gets the same audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. The appellant filed his return of income of 2,84,452/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,05,000/- for the relevant AY on 29.09.2012 During assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO alleged that the appellant remained ... vide order u/s. 144 of the Act, dated 26.03.2015 assessed the total income at 98,02,210/- and agriculture income of Rs.2,05,000/-, wherein following variations to the returned income were made: (i) Treating unsecured loans of ₹86,68,718/- received from various depositors as unexplained and alleging that

M/S Mansa Agro Food Processing Pvt . Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 44/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member M/S. Mansa Agro Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy.Cit – Central Circle – 2(2) 216, Devikripa Society Room No. 207, 2Nd Floor Wardhman Nagar, Nagpur (M.S)– 440006 Aayakar Bhavan Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines Pan – Aabcm6900D Nagpur – 440001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 132

learned CIT(A) has erred in maintaining addition of Rs. 6,06,643/- made by the AO on account of agricultural income. 2. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal.” M/s. Mansa Agro Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Brief facts ... Limited on 16.03.2011. Pursuant to search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, the assessment was completed on 27.02.2015. Assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.6,06,643/-. Assessee owned 36.55 Acres of agricultural land and for the same 7/12 extract was submitted along with other evidences. No details

Laxmi Dutt Bhatt, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 830/LKW/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.830/Lkw/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt V. Ito-3(2) Range-Iii C-340, Sector-B, Mahanagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agypb8691B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 25 03 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 03 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 143(2)Section 68

present appeal are that in this case, the assessee filed his return of income on 28.03.2011, declaring total income of Rs.2,84,000/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,25,000/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and a notice issued

Shri Jagdev Singh, Sirsa vs. ITO Ward-3, Sirsa

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 87/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.87/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Jagdev Singh Ito Ward No.3 S/O Sh. Karnail Singh Sirsa बनाम/ Vs. Village Haboli, Rania District Sirsa. 125055. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bwbps-1275-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 24-09-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 06-12-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 55 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

noted delay of 55 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. It emerges that the assessee declared income of Rs.3.01 Lacs and agricultural income of Rs.2.72 Lacs. It transpired that the assessee deposited cash in its two bank accounts which were stated to be sourced out of earlier withdrawals ... submissions, did not admit the appeal on delay. On merits also, it was observed that Shri Maninder Singh was having dairy income and agricultural income though he was not filing tax return. The payment was stated to be made out of agricultural income. However, the sale deed was not registered

Patkar Srinivas Murthy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 151/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President)

Section 69A

erred on facts and in law in rejecting the claim of the appellant with regard to credit for agricultural income of Rs. 4,00,000/- for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 5,00,000/- for AY 2016-17 on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove the same ... without appreciating the fact that the appellant had filed returns of income for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 reflecting the said agricultural income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the AO has rightly arrived at the cash balance

Sns Constructions P.Ltd, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the 7

ITA 4013/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G Co No. 88/Del/2024 (Ita No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

individual and had filed return of income for AY 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 24,95,570/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,18,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the reasons “suspicion transaction relating to short term capital loss of shares

Shri Harish Chandra, Nainital vs. ITO, Nainital

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

ITA 9/DDN/2024[2017-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2017-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Harish Chandra, Vs. Ao, 48, Thapla, Malital, Nainital, Ward-2(3)(1), Uttarakhand- 263 001 Nainital (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ayypc4939Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, JCIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

khasra / Khatuni, vehicle number, copy of agreement for lease of vehicle etc. has not been furnished by the Assessee to justify the receipt of agricultural income. Hence, the Learned AO proceeded to treat the credits in the bank account representing cheque and cash credits as unexplained money under section

Sh Manoj Kumar Verma, Mainpuri vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(4), Mainpuri

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

ITA 10/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Sahib P. Satsangee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

name and style of M/s Jag Shyam filling station at Mainpuri. The assessee during the year under consideration derived income from business and agricultural income. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the cash deposits made by the assessee during the year. The return ... income for the assessment year 2017-18 was filed by the assessee declaring taxable income of Rs 3,61,970/- and agricultural income of Rs 40,950. In the assessment proceedings, the Learned AO noted that assessee had made certain cash deposits during the demonetization period and asked for explanation