VIJAY SINGH,VILLAGE AHMEDPUR CHAUROLI vs. WARD 2(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1365/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's socio-economic status and the peculiar facts. It restricted the addition to Rs.6,00,000/-, providing a relief of Rs.7,00,000/-, and stipulated that this decision would not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC confirming an addition of Rs.13,45,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee was stated to own agricultural lands and was also involved in the sale of milk.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposit of Rs.13,45,000/- was unexplained, and if not, to what extent should the addition be restricted considering the assessee's circumstances?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.06.2025Pronounced: 25.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Ahmedpur Chauroli, Jewar, Ward-2(5), Uttar Pradesh-203155 Noida-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CXZPS8846N Assessee by: Sh. Pavan Kumar Sharma, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071946913(1) dated 07.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits of Rs.13,45,000/- as unexplained, it transpires during the course of hearing that not only he is prima facie found to be owning agricultural lands but also learned counsel’s states that he has

4.

Faced with this situation and keeping in mind the assessee’s above socio economic status, the tribunal hereby deems it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.13,45,000/- to a lump sum figure of Rs.6,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.7,00,000/- in other words in these peculiar facts and circumstances.

5.

No other ground or argument has been placed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →