SOMVATI GUPTA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI , DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had acknowledged the assessee's agricultural activities and potato produce. Despite the cash deposits not being fully reconciled, the Tribunal held that they represented agricultural income up to Rs.1 lakh.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The case was called twice, and the assessee did not appear, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The Assessing Officer had initially found in favor of the assessee regarding agricultural income.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits in the bank account, despite some lack of reconciliation, could be considered as agricultural income, given the Assessing Officer's own findings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)- 4, Kolkata’s order dated 29.11.2024 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070772456(1), involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities’ respective detailed findings have rightly treated the assessee’s cash deposits in her bank account of Rs.10.78 lakhs as unexplained, in assessment order dated 14.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of case records that the learned Assessing Officer has himself given a categorical finding in assessee’s favour that not only she had been cultivating her agricultural lands but also she had kept her potato produce in a cold storage whose receipts have been incorporated in the assessment order itself. That being the case, the necessary inference which arises in the given facts is that the impugned cash deposits added in the assessee’s hands amounting to Rs.10.78 lakhs; although not satisfactorily reconciled before the learned lower authorities, represent the assessee’s agricultural income which deserves to be upheld to the tune of Rs.1 lakh only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.9.78 lakhs in other words.
2 | P a g e Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026