RAM CHANDER,ROHTAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, ROHTAK, ROHTAK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, observing that the deposits *prima facie* represented a cash component from the sale of an immovable property, reduced the unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs. 19.90 lakhs to a lumpsum of Rs. 1.90 lakhs. This decision provided relief of Rs. 18 lakhs to the assessee, with the rider that this specific addition should not be considered a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an order dated 27.02.2024 concerning assessment year 2011-12, where lower authorities sustained an addition of Rs. 19.90 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits, initiated under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 11 lakhs in the relevant previous year, suggesting the deposits could represent a cash component from this sale. The proceedings were conducted ex-parte as the assessee did not appear.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities were justified in treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained, or if they could be partly attributed to the sale of an immovable property, warranting a reduced addition.
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 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)- 1, Noida’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1061580227(1), dated 27.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
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.
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
2 | P a g e of Rs.18 lakhs in other words as representing cash component in the proceeding.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026