Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arises from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, upholding an addition of Rs.10,75,000/- out of Rs.15,75,000/- as unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer had granted a credit of Rs.5,00,000/- for sale consideration of agricultural land.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had already granted credit for a portion of the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,50,000/- was deemed just and proper, with a rider that it would not be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the entire cash deposits, beyond the already admitted agricultural income and savings, were unexplained and thus taxable?
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Vijay Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village-Ahmedpur, Chauroli, Ward-2(5), Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-203155 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CXZPS8846N Assessee by: Sh. Pavan Kumar Sharma, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072462122(1) dated 23.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
A perusal of the case file indicates that both the learned lower authorities have added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.10,75,000/- out of Rs.15,75,000/-; as unexplained, in the assessment order dated 30.11.2017 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their Vijay Singh respective stands. It is noticed that even the learned Assessing Officer himself is very fair in granting credit of Rs.5,00,000/- to the assessee as representing sale consideration of agricultural land during the year. The necessary inference as per Smt. Malini Ramnath Rele vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (TM) which would arise in such an instance that the impugned cash deposits; apart from agricultural produce sales and family savings, is that the assessee had also received some on money component as well which could not be denied in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,50,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.9,25,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.