“income from other sources”

Income HeadsSection 56Section 568,248 judgments

The decision most relied on for income from other sources is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on income from other sources

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court

1,372

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO

322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,283

citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO

131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court

989

citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court

663

citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court

621

citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court

581

citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Liberty India v. CIT

317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court

571

citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

Judgments citing income from other sources

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujrat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1654/Ahd/2024 & 1656/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17 Respectively Deputy Commissioner Of Gujrat State Electricity बनाम/ Income Tax Corporation Limited V/S. Circle-1(1)(1) Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vadodara 390 007 Race Course Circle Alkapuri, Baroda – 390 007 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals By The Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2016-17 Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Cit(A) Orders Arose From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, By The Deputy

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56

generation. During the assessment proceedings for the relevant years, the AO treated interest income earned on loans and advances provided to employees as "income from other sources" under Section 56 of the Act instead of treating it as "business income." In the assessment order dated 25.02.2015, the AO treated Rs.4 ... income from other sources," arguing that the assessee is not in the business of lending and the loans served only personal benefits for employees. Similarly, in the assessment order dated 28.12.2018, the AO classified Rs.8,00,35,000/- under "income from other sources" with the same rationale. 3.1. The issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1654/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1654/Ahd/2024 & 1656/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17 Respectively Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1) Vadodara 390 007 बनाम / V/S. Gujrat State Electricity Corporation Limited Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Race Course Circle Alkapuri, Baroda – 390 007 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals By The Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2016-17 Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Cit(A) Orders Arose From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"], Dated 25.02.2015 (Ay 2012-13) & 28.12.2018 (Ay 2016-17). 2. The Primary Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Treatment Of Interest Income On Loans & Advances Provided To Employees, Amounting To Rs.4,56,05,000/- (Ay 2012-13) & Rs.8,00,35,000/- (Ay 2016-17). 2.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56

Jyothi Pattin Souhard Sahakari Niyamithi, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer Gadag, Gadag

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

ITA 2005/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Kashinath H Kalmath

Section 143(1)Section 263Section 80P

order of AO u/s. 263 of the IT Act and directed the assessing officer to assess the interest income under the head income from other sources and allowed the corresponding expenses pertaining to the earning of such income i.e. cost of fund. Thereafter, the assessing officer passed the impugned assessment

Punit Deora Trust, Mum vs. ITO, Ward-25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6249/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Ms.Renu Jauhripunit Deora Trust, C/O Vs. Income Tax Department Mumbai – Punit International, 17, Fair Field Society, Opp. K.C. College Churchgate,Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaatp1811E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.L. Jain & Sh. Satish Jain, Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per: Amit Shukla, Jm: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2024 Passed By Addl./Jcit (A), Bhubaneshwar, In Relation To The Adjust Assessment Made U/S 143(1) For The Year 2018-19. 2. In Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Firstly, Not Granting Of Deduction U/S 24(A) To Rs.1,97,80,200/- As Claimed By The Assessee By Computing The Income From House

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 161Section 24

income after allocating the income amongst 5 specified beneficiaries. In the computation of income, assessee has declared income from house property and interest income from other sources. In the intimation u/s 143(1)(a), income credited in the profit and loss account offered under the head „income from house property

Lintas Employees Holiday Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 3949/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajni Rani Roy, SR. AR

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250

assessee on the ground that the assessee is liable to be taxed at the ‘Maximum Marginal Rate’ (MMR) along with surcharge @ 37% on income from other sources. 6. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorised Representative

Ravi Ramakrishnan, Singapore vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the alternate plea of the assessee in Ground No.4 is allowed

ITA 5990/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

issued a show-cause notice to the assessee as to why the difference of Rs. 45,62,270/- cannot be added as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the agreement for purchase of the flat was entered into five ... section 49(4) of the Act. This has resulted in double taxation of the same income, once as Capital Gains and again as Income from Other Sources, which is not what the law intends to tax.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has purchased and sold the property

Mahinder Singh, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

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

ITA 1118/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Cit(A) U/S 246A Be Condoned. 2. That The Addition Of Rs. 10,18,125.00 As Income From Other Sources Is Without Any Basis & Deserves To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Assessee Craves To Add, Amend, Alter, And/Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 246A

days in filing appeal before CIT(A) u/s 246A be condoned. 2. That the addition of Rs. 10,18,125.00 as income from other sources is without any basis and deserves to be set aside. 3. That the assessee craves to add, amend, alter, and/or delete any ground of appeal

Shri Vidhyut Board Credit and Consumers Co Operative Society Limited, Bhavnagar vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 1057/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

income does not constitute part of income from routine activities of the Co-operative Credit Society, such income will fall under the head “income from Other Sources

The Vardhman Stampings Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 363/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 263Section 43(5)Section 73

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ 'A' अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

The Vardhman Stampings Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 362/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah andFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 43(5)Section 73

Atish Ananda Barne, Pune vs. Pravin Agrawal, Pune

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

ITA 1707/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

absence of any explanation, the AO added the difference amount of Rs.2,26,03,000/- to the total income of the assessee as Income from Other Sources invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(v) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with

Raja Giridhar Kumar Nimmagadda, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 287/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 53A

making addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain ("LTCG") of Rs.95,82,388/- and under the head 'income from other sources' towards unexplained cash credit of Rs.57,29,000/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before ... worked out the LTCG at Rs.95,82,388/-. Further, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.57,29,000/- under the head 'income from other sources' as unexplained cash credit treating the excess amount received by the assessee as per unregistered deed, over the amount reflected in the registered deed

Shamoon Ahmed Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Kalyan

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

ITA 6069/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Niyati Hakani, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Government valuation – Rs.1,50,00,000/- consideration shown by the Assessee) should not be added to the total income of the Assessee as income from other sources”. 5. The Assessee, in response to the same, vide letter dated 27.12.2017, claimed that the said property is agricultural land with encroachment

Sh. Yugal Kishor Agarwal, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle 4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

course of reassessment proceedings. The assessee was having income from salary, income from house property, Remuneration and interest from Partnership firm and income from other sources. While framing reassessment order u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) dated 24.10.2019, the Assessing Officer made two additions – firstly, disallowance of Rs.12 ... claimed by the assessee as expenditure against income from other sources by invoking provision of Section 57(iii) of the Act as the assessee could not furnish any evidences in respect of these expenses , and secondly disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.56,407/- under the head income from business

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal, Sri Ganga Nagar

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 486/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 486Section 69A

result, the addition is made to the extent of Rs12,62,880/- under the head of "income from other sources". Penalty is also initiated u/s 271AAB.” 6. Aggrieved, now the Revenue is in appeal against the deletion of addition of Rs. 2,86,29,100/-. 7. We have heard

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

declaring an income of Rs. 4,65,646/- under the head income from house property, capital gains and income from other sources. According to the Assessing Officer the sources of deposits i.e. by way of cash and cheque amounting to Rs. 1,55,05,595/- remained unexplained and accordingly proceedings ... bank. The Assessing Officer also added the interest earned on this bank account of Rs. 1,54,895/- by treating the same as ‘income from other sources’. Accordingly, assessment was framed. Aggrieved, Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) . The CIT(A) simplicitor confirmed the action of the Assessing

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 282/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

31/03/2014. 2. Factual Matrix Proceedings before AO 2.1 The assessee derived income from salary, business income from partnership firms, capital gains and income from other sources during the financial year ending 31/03/2014 relevant to the A.Y.2014-15. 2.2 That the assessee filed return of income ... added the appreciation to the assessees' income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessees' income from undisclosed sources. In Hitesh Gandhi's case (supra) also the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence

Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 451/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Mandir Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Gandhinagar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"].

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

interest received on compensation in a motor accident claim is part of the compensation itself and, hence, is not taxable as "income from other sources." • Gujarat High Court Decision in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO (Special Civil Application No. 17944 of 2015): The Hon'ble Gujarat High ... assessee after the final judgment. However, the AO held that the interest accrued on FDs is not part of the compensation but constitutes "income from other sources" under Section 56 of the Act. The AO noted that the payment of additional compensation was deposited in the ITA No. 451/Ahd/2024 Ranjitsinh

Smt. Janakba Maheshdan Gadhvi, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 953/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law, and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs.27,67,834/- made as income from undisclosed sources, instead of accepting the same as agricultural income earned by the appellant and family members, completely ignoring the evidence on record furnished ... Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order was passed on 30.03.2016 thereby assessing the income as agricultural income, as the assessee earned income from undisclosed source of income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under the head “Income from Other Sources”. As regards