Agricultural Cash Deposits Not Entire Income, Only Profit Taxable

Varshaben Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)

Agricultural Cash Deposits Not Entire Income: ITAT Rajkot Restricts Addition to 10%-No 115BBE for Agricultural Cash Flow:

The Rajkot Bench (SMC) of the ITAT, vide order dated 31.12.2025 in Varshaben Chauhan v. ITO, Jamnagar (ITA No. 689/RJT/2025, AY 2020-21), partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and substantially reduced the addition made on account of cash deposits in a bank account.

The assessee, an individual agriculturist, had not filed a return of income as her entire income comprised agricultural income exempt from tax. Based on information received u/s 133(6) from Saurashtra Gramin Bank, the AO noticed cash deposits of ₹18,68,419 (excluding interest) and treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A, along with addition of bank interest of ₹24,858, aggregating to ₹18,93,277. The assessment was framed ex-parte, despite the assessee having furnished landholding documents (Form 7/12 and Form 8A) and details of agricultural activities. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee demonstrated ownership and cultivation of substantial agricultural land (about 56.41 vighas) held jointly with family members and explained that the cash deposits represented agricultural receipts and past savings. The Tribunal accepted that the assessee was a genuine agriculturist, that cultivation was not in dispute, and that entire cash deposits could not be treated as income, since only the profit element embedded in agricultural sales could at best be brought to tax.

Considering the smallness of the amounts and peculiar facts, the ITAT held that an estimated addition of 10% of total deposits would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the AO was directed to restrict the addition to ₹1,89,327 (10% of ₹18,93,277) and to tax the same under normal provisions, not u/s 115BBE. The Tribunal clarified that the decision was fact-specific and not a general precedent.

Thus, the appeal was partly allowed, granting substantial relief to the assessee.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year ( AY) 2020-21, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 13.08.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act, on 07.03.2025.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, I have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the assessee. I find that most of the grounds raised by the assessee, are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, I confine myself to the core of the controversy and main grievance of the assessee. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,68,419/-, made by the assessing officer as unexplained money u/s 69A and Rs. 24,858/-, as unexplained income under the head income from other sources.

3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before me is an Individual and did not file the return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that as per the information available and received from the Saurashtra Gramin Bank –Jamdudhai, under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, it was noticed that credits of Rs. 18,68,419/- (excluding credits of bank interest) has been deposited in Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Account No. 0000078027153594 of the assessee, during the year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted required details and documents before the assessing officer, despite of this, the assessing officer framed the assessment order, as ex-parte. The assessee submitted the documentary evidences also during the assessment proceedings, such as, Form no.7 and Form No.8 in respect of land holding proof. The assessee also submitted the relevant documents and evidences relating to agricultural income and expenses. However, assessing officer did not bring these documents and evidences on record/ in the assessment order. The assessing officer finally concluded that the nature and sources of credits of Rs. 18,68,419/-, made into Bank Account no. 0000078027153594 remained unexplained, and therefore treated by the assessing officer, as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration.

4. The assessing officer also made addition in the hands of the assessee, on account of interest amounting to Rs. 24,858/-. Therefore, the assessing officer made total addition in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs.18,93,277/-(Rs.18,68,419 + Rs. 24,858).

5. Aggrieved by the addition of Rs.18,93,277/-, so made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has stated and submitted that the Assessing Officer wrongly treated cash deposited into bank, as unexplained money, despite of furnishing, sufficient documentary evidences. However, learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer, therefore, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.

6. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessee, being agriculturist, does not maintain books of account, as the entire income of the assessee is exempt from tax, and because of this reason, the assessee did not file the return of income. The amount deposited in the bank account is entirely belongs to agricultural income and past savings from agricultural activities. Therefore, no addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. However, alternatively, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that an ad-hoc, estimated addition at the rate of 10%, may be made in the hands of the assessee. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that considering the smallness of the amount, and to protect the interest of the revenue an ad-hoc, estimated addition at the rate of 20%, of cash deposit in the bank account, should be made in the hands of the assessee.

7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties. I note that during the assessment proceedings, before the assessing officer, the assessee has submitted land holding proof, such as, a copy of 7/12 and, a copy of Form 8A, in respect of proof of possession of the agricultural land and proof of past savings. Therefore, I note that assessee is an agricultural, does not have any other income, except agricultural income, therefore, assessee did not file the return of income, as the entire agricultural income is exempted from tax. The assessee submitted evidence of vegetables grown from own agriculture land. The assessee having sufficient agriculture land, the details of such land is as follows:

The ld.Counsel submitted that assessee lives and resides with joint family and being agriculturists, he is not supposed to follow the system of accounting for the preparation of the sales bills and the preservation of the same and only the proof of land supported by the cultivation is enough for that assessee had submitted forms of 7-12 & 8A of all the agricultural land mentioned above. I note that the cultivation made by the assessee in agricultural land is not in dispute. Therefore, the entire cash deposited with the bank can never be treated as income and a profit element embedded in the sale of agricultural production, which was deposited in the bank account by the assessee, may be added in the hands of the assessee, on presumptive basis, that is, 10% of turnover (sale of agricultural production which was deposited in the bank account).Therefore, considering these facts and circumstances, and considering the smallness of the amount, I direct the assessing officer, to make addition in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs.1,89,327/- (10 % of Rs.18,93,277), by applying the normal rate of income tax ( not under section 115BBE). I, once again emphasise that this decision is rendered on the peculiar facts of this case and having regard to the smallness of the amounts involved, and, therefore, it cannot be construed as laying down propositions of law of general applications.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2025.