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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3347/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 July 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 24.07.2025Pronounced: 24.07.2025

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.

2.

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

2 | P a g e of Rs.18 lakhs in other words as representing cash component in the proceeding.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →