“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

Arun Kumar Dhondi Kubeer, Armoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 669/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumara N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.667 To 670/Hyd/2024 & Sa Nos. 17 To 19/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Shri Arun Kumar Dhondi Vs. Income Tax Officer Kubeer, Armoor Ward-1 Pan:Aazpd7647P Nizamabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. K Hanmandloo राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sr-Ar Shri R Kumaran Appeared For Sr.Ar Shri Madam Mohan Meena सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A. K HanmandlooFor Respondent: : SR-AR Shri R Kumaran appeared for Sr.AR Shri

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271

profits from Partnership firms (i) Arun Paints and Hardware and (ii) M/s. Navanatha Puri Finance Corporation, capital gains, interest income as well as agricultural income. The assessee filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2011-12 on 04.05.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.5,29,400 and estimated ... Agricultural income of Rs.1,65,000. The Appellant was served upon notices u/s 133(6) regarding transactions with The Citizen Co-operative Credit Society. The Appellant has filed his response to notice u/s 133(6) along with the information called for. The Case has been selected for scrutiny and served

Arun Kumar Dhondi Kubeer, Armoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 668/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: C.A. K HanmandlooFor Respondent: : SR-AR Shri R Kumaran appeared for Sr.AR Shri

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271

Arun Kumar Dhondi Kubeer, Armoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: C.A. K HanmandlooFor Respondent: : SR-AR Shri R Kumaran appeared for Sr.AR Shri

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271

Rajkumari Ashok Thakur, Palghar vs. CIT Appeal, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3589/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Nfac, Delhi Rajkumari Ashok Thakur Vaishali Deshi Bar Juna Palghar, Near St Depot, Maharashtra – 401404. Pan/Gir No. Akwpt9344C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 234Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

case and in law, the learned A O erred in adding income of Rs 1.82.647/- u/s 68 on a/c of shortfall in Agriculture Income ignoring the evidence submitted and available on record and wrongly treated the expenses as incurred in cash even though the Appellant is 2 Rajkumari Ashok Thakur ... sales at Rs. 9,91,068/- and has not believed the sales of Rs. 1,82,647/- for want of sales receipts of agricultural income and thus added shortfall as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. In this regard the Ld. AR apart from reiterating the same arguments

Dipikaben Alpeshkumar Patel Legal Heir of Late Alpeshkumar Jagdishbhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1687/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 69A

filed a return of income under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, declaring income from other sources amounting to Rs. 1,611/- and agricultural income of Rs. 10,42,940/-. The Tax Authorities issued a notice to the assessee, requesting an explanation for a cash deposit ... correct amount of the cash deposit was Rs. 1,05,000/- and not Rs. 16,82,000/-, and this deposit was sourced from agricultural income and bank withdrawals the Counsel for the assessee also submitted a summary of their bank account with the Central Bank of India (Account

Spectra Equipment Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 500/HYD/2023[Assessment Year 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Akanksha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Narmada, CIT-DR for Shri Madan Mohan Meena

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

taxes levied and collected by the Union and distributed between the union and these states. Caluse (1) says that tax on income other than agricultural income shall be levied and collected by the Government of India and distributed between the Union and the states in the manner provided in clause

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Nagpal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Dcit Vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-Ii 697 Katra Neel Chandni Noida. Chowk, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aabcn9620F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govind Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024

taxmann.com 463 (Gujarat) it has been held as under: Section 69A, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money etc. (Agricultural income) - Assessment year 2010-11 During relevant year, assessee earned agricultural income which was exempt from tax Assessee filed its return declaring certain other taxable

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4050/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., Room No.91, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. 2B Grant Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcr3491C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pitambar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.320/15-16/2297 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pitambar Das, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Ikbalbhai Abdulgani Pocha, Shahera, Panchmahal, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Godhra, Income Tax Office, Civil Line Godhra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

response to the queries, the assessee submitted that bifurcation of capital addition wherein Rs.14,56,561/- was earlier withdrawal and remaining part is agricultural income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that the withdrawals were in the financial year 2015-16 and there is surplus fund as cash in hand ... source of cash deposits. On perusal of the ITR for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18, assessee has not claimed any agricultural income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has just colouring the transaction with his malafide intention and manipulated the source of cash deposits

Rahul Sureshkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1280/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

engaged in production of agricultural commodities Arrenda and Wheat. Thus, the assessee and his father are having primary source of income from salary and agricultural income. The assessee has filed copy of Girdawari Report as well as copy of revenue record confirming that the assessee’s father is engaged ... relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that, from the perusal of the records, it appears that the assessee is having agricultural income alongwith his father and the receipts which were shown before us categorically mentions that the assessee and his father has sold agricultural commodities

Uddhav Dattu Marathe HUF, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1514/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1514/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Uddhav Dattu Marathe Vs. Ito, Ward- 2(2), Huf, Jalgaon. Prop. Of Shri Govind Prabhu Trading Co., At Post Pimpalgaon Hareshwar, Tal. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon- 424203. Pan : Aaahu6015M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte On The Ground That There Was Non Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee To The Various Notices Issued By Him

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Shri Govind Prabhu Trading Company. The assessee filed its return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.6,55,250/- and agricultural income at Rs.2,79,414/-. The case was selected 3 through CASS for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward

Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Colo Color Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 789/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69B

contrary to the strict provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India which must be "taxes on income other than agricultural income.” 12. In the instant case, respondent assessee has categorically denied to have paid the said excess amount (investment) to the tune

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

following cases. - i) Where the Assessing Officer had accepted entry in the statement of account filed by the assessee showing certain income as agricultural income, without making any enquiry, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s 263(1) would be justified- Malabar Industrial ... following cases: - i) Where the Assessing Officer had accepted entry in the statement of account filed by the assessee showing certajn income as agricultural income, without making any enquiry, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s 263(1) would be justified- Malabar industrial

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Patanakar Shivendra Nagojirao HUF, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1542/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

which was subsequently revised couple of times u/s.139(5) on 19.11.2014 and 11.12.2015 respectively declaring total income of Rs.3,56,620/- and Agricultural income of Rs.78,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the large cash deposits in savings bank account maintained with Vijaya Bank ... assessee to furnish the name and address of the persons/parties to whom the assessee has given his agricultural land on rent and received agricultural income. The assessee filed the relevant details. The AO was not convinced with the details furnished by the assessee. Eventually, the AO made addition of Rs.34

Nand Kishore Singh, Barabanki vs. Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department, Faceless

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

ITA 674/LKW/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Singh V. Assessment Unit Jarmapur Income Tax Department Post Barauli Malik Lucknow Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ataps3227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 270ASection 68

Appellate Authority has erred in dismissing the Ground 3 made in grounds of appeal by disbelieving and making addition of already disclosed exempt agricultural income of Rs.650000 as income from other sources. ITA No.674/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 5 5. Any other ground/s that may be taken at the time

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. The ACIT, Circle- Palanpur, Palanpur

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1368/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

consideration: Details AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Date of Filing Return 29/03/2017 19/03/2018 Returned Income Rs. (-2,00,000/-) Rs. 26,76,430/- Agricultural Income Rs. 2,69,907/- Rs. 3,26,769/- Date of AO Order 30/12/2018 18/12/2019 Section under which AO Order Passed

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. Old Jurisdiction- Circle, Palanpur New Jurisdiction-Circle, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1367/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

Chilakala Govinda Sekhar, Mylavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Proddutur

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

ITA 1173/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav,DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

response to the notice, the assessee has filed his return of income on 04.08.2018, admitting total income of Rs.2,48,000/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,15,000/-. The case was selected for 4 scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee ... explain the sources of income, in response, the assessee submitted that he is an agriculturist owns 7.44 acres of agricultural land and derives agricultural income. The assessee further submitted that he has borrowed gold loan from the bank for the purpose of agricultural operations and the available cash has been

Chand Singh Rajput, Shajapur vs. ITO, Shajapur

ITA 411/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and has no income other than the agricultural income therefore, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139 of the Act or in response to notice ... while passing ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act. He has pointed out that the source of deposit is the agricultural income of the assessee therefore, the addition made by the AO is not justified. The CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee