RAM CHANDER,ROHTAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.19.90 lakhs as unexplained, in assessment order dated 03.12.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. A perusal of the case file indicates that the assessee had in fact sold/transferred a capital asset in question i.e. an immovable property on 05.10.2010 for a consideration of Rs.11 lakhs in the relevant previous year. The necessary inference which would prima facie arise therefore is that the impugned cash deposits; although neither verified nor reconciled before the learned lower authorities, represents cash component in the foregoing sale deed which could not be altogether denied. That being the case and in light of all the peculiar facts and circumstances involved herein, the tribunal hereby deems it appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1.90 lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief 3 | P a g e of Rs.18 lakhs in other words as representing cash component in the proceeding. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th July, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)