आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:373)ी एस.एस. िव(cid:695)ने(cid:361) रिव, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एवं (cid:373)ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member &

Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1731/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 29A, Manthinapalli Vasal Street, Ward 1, Batlagundu Road, Begampur, Dindigul.

Dindigul 624 002.

[PAN:ACFPM9762L]

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. S. Vidya, C.A.

(cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17.

2. The assessee raised 3 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of agricultural income in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. We note that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 admitting total income of ₹.7,65,160/- and agricultural income of ₹.85,84,619/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short]. The case was subsequently selected for "Limited scrutiny" under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 05.07.2017 was issued. The reason for scrutiny selection is to verify the "Whether sales turnover/receipts has been correctly offered for tax, Whether the claim of agricultural income is correct and Whether the capital gain/loss on sale of property has been correctly shown in the return of income". We note that after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee though, planted the tree sapling and carried out pruning activity, all other activities as discussed at page 6 to 10 of the assessment order held that the assessee has not carry out agricultural activities in line with the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, and in the case of CIT V Ramakrishna Deo, disallowed the agricultural income claimed by the assessee, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

4. The ld. AR Ms. S. Vidya, C.A. submits that during the course of assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings, the fact that the assessee had grown Kungiliyam (Eucalyptus) trees and Seegai (Wattle) trees on his land is not disputed. The assessee offered the agricultural income out of sale of trees as defined in the above provisions, for the purpose of claiming agricultural income. The assessee produced the patta and chitta of the lands during the assessment proceedings showing that the land is Punjai lands/ dry agricultural land, which is evident from the assessment order. She submits that it is an undisputed fact by the Inspector of the ward, who did the field visit and submitted the report on 06.12.2018 stating that the assessee was growing eucalyptus trees on his land but only observation made that no maintenance carried out for growth of the trees. She argued vehemently that it is evident that the land on which the eucalyptus trees are grown are dry agricultural lands and drew our attention to the provisions of section 2(1A) of the Act and submits that the agricultural income means any rent or revenue derived from the land which is situated in India and is used for carrying out agricultural activities and prayed that the agricultural income claimed by the assessee should be al