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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1281/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 July 2025AY 2011-20123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the entire amount could not be treated as unexplained, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2,91,150/- would be just and proper, giving relief of Rs. 10 lakhs to the assessee. This addition was not to be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 12,91,150/- which were treated as unexplained. The assessee had sold lands in the relevant financial year, suggesting the deposits might be on-money from the sale.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits are unexplained income, and if the on-money component from land sale can be considered as a partial explanation for such deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: CA |
For Respondent: DR |

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1281/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Sh. Chandra Swarup Tyagi, | Vs. | Income Tax Officer, C/o-Sanjeev Anand & | Ward-1(2), Associates, 136, | CGO Complex, Navyug Market, | Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh PAN: AGMPT0281E (Appellant) | (Respondent)

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

ORDER

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 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.

4.

This assessee's appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2025

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 2nd July, 2025.

RK/-

Copy forwarded to:

- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →