is not land, the income cannot be considered as agricultural income. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (32 ITR 466) wherein it has been held that without the performance of the basic operations such as tilling of land, sowing of seeds, planting and similar operations on the land, mere performance of subsequent operations such as weeding, digging the soil around the growth, tendering, pruning, cutting etc, would not be enough to characterise them as agricultural operations and found that the respondent/assessee had not submitted any document with regard to the expenditure incurred by him towards agricultural operations such as tilling of land, sowing of seeds, plating and similar operation of land. He has also relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of H.H.Maharaja Vibhuti Singh vs. State of U.P. (65 ITR 3640) wherein it has been held that income from nursery is not an agricultural income unless maintained by the farmers as an additional or necessary adjunct to the primary process of agriculture for example paddy, nursery, nursery of tomato plants. He has also referred to the decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raja Bahadur Karmakya Narain Singh (161 ITR 325) wherein it has been held that there must be nexus between the income, land and agricultural operation. Eventually, based on the aforesaid decisions, the Assessing Officer disallowed the agricultural income, by order dated 13.03.2013.
