ITAT Delhi Deletes Section 69A Addition as Excess Agricultural Income Was Declared by Mistake

Chander Pal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

In Chander Pal Vs ITO, the ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed deletion of an addition of Rs.15,50,000/- made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.

The assessee, an agriculturist, had filed a return of income declaring agricultural income of Rs.20,50,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that due to an inadvertent mistake, agricultural income was wrongly declared at Rs.20,50,000/- instead of Rs.10,50,000/-. To support this contention, the assessee filed an affidavit of Shri Manish Kumar, who had purportedly filed the return of income on behalf of the assessee.

The assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer had estimated agricultural income at only Rs.5,00,000/- by considering income from wheat crop alone. According to the assessee, agricultural operations were carried out throughout the year and income was also earned from cultivation of paddy. Reliance was placed on khasra girdawari records to show cultivation of both Rabi and Kharif crops. The assessee also pointed out that agricultural income declared in subsequent assessment years, namely Rs.14,78,195/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs.12,87,760/- in AY 2019-20, had been accepted by the Department.

The Department supported the order of the lower authorities and opposed the appeal.

After examining the record, the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had estimated agricultural income at Rs.5,00,000/- based on average yield and production targets available on the website of the Department of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Haryana. However, the estimation had been made only with reference to wheat crop. The Tribunal noted that khasra girdawari on record showed that the assessee had also cultivated paddy and therefore total annual agricultural income had to be determined after considering both Rabi and Kharif crops.

The Tribunal further noted that the assessee had produced copies of Form J evidencing sale of agricultural produce. The aggregate sale value reflected in the Forms J available on record amounted to Rs.9,62,217/-. Considering these records, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee’s submission that agricultural income determined by the Assessing Officer was on the lower side.

With respect to the incorrect declaration of agricultural income in the return of income, the Tribunal observed that the proper course for rectification would ordinarily have been filing of a revised return. Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that the assessee could not be left remediless merely because excess agricultural income had been wrongly declared in the return. Referring to the principle that tax can be collected only in accordance with law, the Tribunal observed that if an assessee offers excess income under a mistake, misconception, or lack of proper guidance, tax authorities are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bengaluru [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 19.11.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2. The assessee in appeal has assailed addition of Rs.15,50,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. Shri Arpit Goyal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is an agriculturist. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring agricultural income of Rs.20,50,000/-. Inadvertently in the Return of Income, the assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.20,50,000/- instead of Rs.10,50,000/-. Thus, excess agricultural income of Rs.10,00,000/- was declared by the assessee in the return of income. In support of this submission, the assessee furnished an affidavit of Shri Manish Kumar, who has purportedly filed assessee’s return of income for AY 2017-18.

The Id. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) while determining agricultural income at Rs.5,00,000/- has taken into consideration only wheat crop. Whereas, the assessee has been cultivating the land throughout the year and has agricultural income from cultivation of paddy also. To substantiate his argument, he referred to khasra girdawari at page no. 20 of the paper book. The Id. AR further pointed that in the preceding assessment years i.e. AY 2018-19, the assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.14,78,195/- and in AY 2019-20 Rs.12,87,760/- and the same were accepted by the Department. He thus, prayed for deleting the addition and accepting agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.10,50,000/-.

3. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently defending the impugned order prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has not accepted assesses’ claim of agricultural income of Rs.10,50,000/- from cultivate of land admeasuring 10 acres. The AO referring to the Five Year Average yield and production targeted from FY 2013-14 to 2017-18 available on the website of Department of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Haryana estimated total agricultural income of assessee at Rs.5,00,000/- per year. The said estimation is only in respect of wheat crop. As is evident from khasra girdawari placed on record, the assessee has also cultivated paddy. Thus, the total annual agricultural income has to be determined after considering Rabi and Kharif crops. The assessee in order to further substantiate total agricultural income has also placed on record copies of Form J at pages 7 to 13 of the paper book. The aggregate of agricultural produce sold by the assessee as per Form J available on record is Rs.9,62,217/-. Thus, I find merit in the submissions of the assessee to the extent that the agricultural income of the assessee determined by the AO was very much on the lower side.

5. In so far as the assessee’s contention that in the return of income, agriculture income has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.20,50,000/- instead of Rs.10,50,000/-, the right course of action for rectifying the mistake was by way of filing revised return. Nevertheless, the assessee cannot the left remedy less for wrongly declaring excessive agricultural income in the return of income. It is a trait law that tax can be collected only as per law. If an assessee under a mistake, misconception on in absence of proper guidance offers excess income, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. The income offered to tax by the assessee in original return would or in revised return not ipso facto bar an assessee from claiming an expense/deduction/exemption or disputing an income, if it is otherwise permissible under law. After considering entire factual matrix and the affidavit of Shri Manish Kumar who has purportedly filed assessee’s return of income for AY 2017-18, the AO is directed to consider assessee’s agricultural income for AY 2017-18 at Rs.10,50,000/-.

6. In the result, the addition of Rs.15,50,000/- u/s.69A of the Act is directed to be deleted.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 24^th day of April, 2026.