CHANDRA SWARUP TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National
Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070430271(1), dated
18.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. The perusal of the instant case file reveals that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits
Assessee by Sh. Sumit Gupta, CA
Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
02.07.2025
Date of pronouncement
02.07.2025
2 | P a g e of Rs.12,91,150/- as unexplained under section 69 of the Act; in assessment order dated 06.11.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
3. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. It is noticed from a perusal of the case file that the assessee had in fact sold his lands vide sale deed dated 12.11.2011 in the relevant financial year 2011-12. The necessary inference which would prima facie arise therefore in such a situation is that the impugned cash deposits form part of on-money component which could not be altogether ruled out going by Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele Vs. Third
Income-Tax Officer on [1994] 49 ITD 43 (TM) (MUM). It is further made clear that the assessee has also not been able to plead and prove his on-money argument to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2,91,150/- in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.10 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
3 | P a g e

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 2nd July, 2025. RK/-