Jay Shanker Prasad vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the Commissioner of Income T ax(Appeals)/National Facele ss Appeal Centre (for shor t, “the CIT(A)/NFAC”), Delhi’s DIN & Order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086044613(1) dated 16.02 .2026, involving proceedings u/s 143 (3)r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It transpires at the outset during the cour se of hearing that the assessee/appe llant is aggrieve d against both the learned lower authorities’ respe ctive findings declining his agricultural income claim of Rs. 58,42,765/- in entirety in assessme nt order dated 22 .09.2022 partly restricted to Rs. 46,42,765/- in the lower appellate discussion; forming the sole subject matter of the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.

That be ing the case, we sought to ascertain assessee’s alleged thereof i.e. owner ship of his agr icultural land. We are informed that he happens to be the son of Shri Rabi Shankar Prasad who admittedly left for his heavenly abode on 21.03.2021. Coming to the ow nership o f the land in issue, the Assessing O fficer’s assessment discussion reveals at page Nos. 2 to 3 that the asessee had claimed the land in question as admeasuring 12.98 acres whereas his gro unds of appeal raised herein states the same to be 23 acr es. Ther s is fur ther no dispute that the learned CIT(A) has gr anted relief to him to the extent of Rs. 12 Lakhs i.e. broadly @ Rs. 1 lakh agricultural income per acre only.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Re venue’s respective pleadings against and in support of the impugned addition. We are of the considered view that be it 12.98 acres or 23 acres; as the case may be, the fact re mains that possibility of accumulate d past savings of the assessee late father as well as the relevant crop produce raised thereupon invo lving the highly unorganize d sector; as the case maybe , could not be altogether rule d o ut in the peculiar facts involve d herein. We accordingly deem it appropriate to that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 10lakhs only in the given facts in the assessee’s hands in such a backdrop would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets re lief of Rs. 36,42,765/- in other words. Necessary computation shall fo llow as per law. No other ground or ar gument has been presse d.

This assessee’s appe al is partly allowed in above terms.