Yohann Kekoo Sethna Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case of Yohann Kekoo Sethna, the Bangalore ITAT dealt with addition of ₹33.12 lakh claimed as agricultural income but treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and taxed u/s 115BBE.
The Assessing Officer made the addition because:
- The assessee failed to furnish basic evidence such as land ownership/lease, crop records, sales details, or books of account.
- The claim of agricultural income remained completely unsubstantiated.
The CIT(A) upheld the addition.
Before ITAT:
- The assessee sought one more opportunity to produce evidence.
The Tribunal observed:
- There was total lack of documentary support at earlier stages.
- However, considering the nature of the claim, factual verification is essential before final taxation.
Accordingly, ITAT:
- Set aside the addition,
- Restored the matter to AO for fresh examination, and
- Directed the assessee to produce complete evidence of agricultural activity.
At the same time, ITAT imposed a ₹2,000 cost for non-compliance and delay in furnishing evidence.
Agricultural income claims don’t get a free pass-no evidence = taxable income. But ITAT still ensures one fair opportunity before final addition sticks
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 21.11.2025 for Assessment Year 2021–22, wherein the addition of ₹33,12,391 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and taxed under section 115BBE of the Act was confirmed.
