“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

Tonasageri Gouda Mallikarjuna, Kudligi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ballari

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1556/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Tonasageri Gouda Mallikarjuna, The Deputy Commissioner Of D. No. 104, Ward No. 1, Income Tax, Ashwamedha Wines, Circle-1, Vs. Kudligi – 583 135 Ballari Pan: Aqdpm7773M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP

Section 133Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 44ASection 69A

that assessee is an individual engaged in the retail trading of liquor under the name and style of Ashvamedha wines. Assessee is also earning agricultural income. Assessee filed its return of income under section 139 (1) on 30 October 2017 declaring a total income

Muqeem Khan, Saharanpur vs. ITO-Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 327/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.327 /Del/2026

Faizan Ahmad, Dehradun vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

Appeal is allowed

ITA 821/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Faizan Ahmad, Vs Pcit, Verendra Kalra & Co., Cas, Dehradun-248001 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acbpa6844R Assessee By : Ms. Ruchika Rana, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Pcit, Dehradun’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031618340(1) Dated 19.03.2021, In Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchika Rana, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 263

erroneous 2 Faizan Ahmad one, since having not carried out the necessary detailed enquiries regarding land advance(s) received to Rs.75,00,000/- and agricultural income, involving varying sums, respectively. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that we notice from the learned PCIT’s revision order itself at page ... limited” scrutiny inter alia regarding the twin issues of mismatch in sales turnover and substantial increase in capital than that of advances received and agricultural income (supra). That being the case, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that once the Assessing Officer could not have travelled

Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 65/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

receipt of the notice. The return of income showing total Income of Rs. Nil was filed on 31.01.2012. The assessee has also shown agricultural income of Rs 10,73,608/-. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 29.08.2012, which was served upon the assessee. Further detailed ... which are reproduced by the AO, at page no.3 to 4 of the assessment order. In reply, the assessee submitted that assessee had agriculture income and out of agriculture income amount of Rs.21,50,000/- was given to Manojbhai Arjanbhai Nandasana. The assessee also submitted that he does not carry

Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 63/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 407/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen.Cir.-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 451/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

Jasdev Singh, Bathinda vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Btd, Bathinda

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

ITA 662/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [Pan:-Bzyps0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant By Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

filed this return declaring a total income of Rs.83,500/- under the head other source plus an amount of Rs.1.68 lakhs under the head agricultural income. The source of deposit of cash in bank account was explained by the assessee to have arisen out of sale proceeds of land (including

Shri Swaran Singh, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Moga

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

ITA 50/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

against which return of income has been filed declared total income of Rs.2,720/- only plus 6.75 lacs as agricultural income. 6. In course of assessment proceedings there has not been any response to various opportunities issued and as such, the assessee’s portion in the total investment of Rs.75.73

Shri Jamnadas Virjibhai Bhalodia, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward- 1 (1) (2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 182/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.182/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम/ Shri Jamnadas Virjibhai Bhalodia Income Tax Officer B-602, Pentagon Tower, Opp. Vs Ward – 1(1)(2), Rajkot Speedwell Party Plot, Behind Govani Chhatralay, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afzpb6922N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

details. In response to this notice, the assessee filed e-submission/s as called for during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee earned agricultural income and income from other sources during the year under consideration. As per the SFT account summary details, the assessee has deposited cash ... source of cash deposits is out of cash withdrawals made in earlier years and current year, cash on hand and loans received and agricultural income. However, the contention of the assessee did not appear acceptable by the assessing officer, therefore, a show -cause notice dated 10.12.2019 was issued

Narottam Atmaram Warde, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

determine the nature of land. Honourable Bombay High Court in CIT v. Debbie Alemao 331 ITR 59 (Bom HC) held that "Actual earning of agricultural income is not a sine qua non for determining the character of agricultural land." Absence of agricultural income is legally irrelevant. The AO has implicitly ... assumed that because no agricultural income was shown, the land is not agricultural. This assumption is unsustainable in law. 2.3 Even if the land was later used for development, the law is settled that what matters is the character of land on the date of transfer, not future use. Honourable

Prashanth Basavaraju, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Mysuru

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

ITA 2174/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Prashanth Basavaraju, 15, 6Th Main, 7Th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Saraswathipuram, Ward 1(4), Vs. Mysuru, Karnataka – 570 009. Mysuru. Pan: Bjipp0753K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vageesh Hegde, CA

Section 142Section 143Section 69A

Briefly stated the facts of the case shows that the assessee is an individual having the rental income, interest income and agricultural income. He filed his return of income declaring rental income of ₹ 684,068, interest on bank fixed deposits and saving account of ₹ 83,166/– and agricultural income ... Lacs in the bank account with the Punjab National Bank, Mysore was deposited in the specified banknotes during demonetization period. The assessee has declared agricultural income in the impugned assessment year only and no agricultural income was shown in the earlier years. The reason given for accumulation was to purchase

Krishnaiah Panabaka, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1767/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita.No.1767/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi P. Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

sources were very well established. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the fact that the Appellant was consistent in disclosing the agricultural income in all the earlier years, and has erred in understanding the fact that the Appellant has also received agricultural income during the current year under ... time of hearing. 4 ITA.No.1767/Hyd./2025 3. The assessee is an individual and retired government servant having income from salary [pension] and agricultural income. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 30.07.2022 declaring total income of Rs.9,96,060/-. The case

Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Chikmaglur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

In the result, along with ground no

ITA 2027/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 18.10.2018 declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,32,59,0007/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,36,26,452/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of large agricultural income. The notice ... issued. By issue of various notices, the Assessee was asked to submit the complete details of the agricultural income, its nature, type and measurement of land, ownership of land, crop grown, village, Tehsil etc., The Assessee was issued several notices but did not reply and therefore the addition was made

Suman Jagannath Sankhe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41.4.4, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 7528/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68

both agriculturists and this fact is accepted by the Ld. AO himself; c. The cash deposited was from past savings out of the agricultural income earned by the Appellant and her husband and could therefore not be treated as undisclosed; d. In any case, the addition has been made ... assessee had offered interest income earned on savings and fixed deposits as income from other sources along with agriculture income earned from their ancestral agricultural land. The assessee case was selected for scrutiny u/s. 148 on basis of information received from ITO Ward 35(2) (1) w.r.t. Cash Deposits

Shri Kamta Sahu, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.10/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Kamta Sahu H. No.47, Village: Barauda, Dharsiva, Raipur-493 221 (C.G.) Pan: Dshps7162H

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

agricultural produce in the local market. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC admits that the assessee had deposited an amount in the bank account from agricultural income for the year under consideration but upheld the addition made by the A.O on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any agricultural ... brought out any evidence to suggest any other undisclosed source of income by the assessee. The Revenue is harping upon non-furnishing of “Agricultural Income Certificate from the concerned authority.” It is hard to believe that such evidence exists at all since in the entire country majority of the people

Sudalai Mani Gurumoorthi, Thiruvarur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3274/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

firms. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 21.04.2015 declaring a total income of Rs.21,85,370/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,89,110/-. The AO noticed that the assessee has purchased a property during the year under Sudalai Mani Gurumoorthi :- 2 -: consideration for Rs.82

Honnappa Munivenkatareddy, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2488/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Honnappa Munivenkatareddy, #316, Overhead Tank Road, The Income Tax Officer, Chickballapur H.O, Chickballapur, Ward-2(1)(1), Vs. Karnataka – 562 101. Bengaluru. Pan: Aoxpm0334G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikiran, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 54

income at a total income of Rs. 2,73,960/-. 10. The Assessee is a pensioner from Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, who has agricultural income and income from other business. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessee submitted the complete details in form of income statement, sale deed and statement

Golden Sandhar Mills Limited, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward-10(3), Delhi

ITA 5562/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandragolden Sandhar Mills Ltd, Vs. Ito, Sugar Mill Complex Sugar Ward-10(3), Mill, Gt Road Phagwara, Delhi Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacw3332J Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 36(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 5Section 68

prejudicial to the interests of the revenue which is apparent from the following reasons: - i) Non addition of Agricultural Income of Rs. 7,95,49,478/- as was done in in assessee’s own case for AY 2015-16 even though, the same was decided in the favour ... directed the AO to conduct assessment afresh on the ground that the AO had not conducted worthwhile enquiries. On the issue of Agricultural income, we find that the ld PCIT sought addition of Agricultural Income of Rs. 7,95,49,478/- because it was added in assessee’s own case

Sukhbir Singh, Guruharsahai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

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

ITA 28/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 28/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sukhbir Singh, Ito, C/O Sukhbir Singh & Co., V Ward 3(1), Faridkot Road, S Ferozepur Guruharsahai, Punjab 152022 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps2687M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

such we condone the delay. 6. Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity on lease hold lands and has disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 1.53 crores (plus interest income of Rs. 63.60 lakhs) and in course of scrutiny assessment documentary evidences were filed and explanation submitted ... hearing conducted through video, where the AO accepted a portion of the declared agricultural income as authentic and disallowed an amount of Rs. 92 lakhs (approx.) as income from sources other than agriculture, resulting in an addition u/s 68 of the Act, in absence of adequate documentary evidences pertaining