LATE SH MANGAT SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH MUKESH TYAGI,HAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4) HAPUR, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee/appellant’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex- parte.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.14,51,550/- as representing his unexplained investment u/s

Faced with this situation, the tribunal hereby notes from a perusal of CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion that the assessee’s joint account herein maintained with his son Sh. Mukesh Tyagi had cash deposits of Rs.29,03,100/- wherein he sought to explain all along that the same represents cash component of sale consideration of his immovable property sold/transferred in the relevant previous year. It is made clear that the assessee’s above sold/transferred of his immovable propert(ies) herein has nowhere been disputed by the learned lower authorities. It is in view of these clinching facts that the necessary inference which could be drawn in assessee’s favour is that the impugned cash deposits are his on-money only although not satisfactorily explained and reconciled before the learned lower authorities. I thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to conclude that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only in the given facts and circumstances would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.12,05,550/- out of the addition amount confirmed to the tune of Rs.13,05,550/- in the CIT(A)/NFAC lower appellate discussion in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.