CHANDRA SWARUP TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Smt. Malini Ramnath Rele v. ITO18 citing49 ITD 43 · 1994 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
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.
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.
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.
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
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026