Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak dated 27.12.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order in the name of deceased person, although the CIT (A) was duly informed about the death of Sh. Dhupan Singh.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, although the notice issued is invalid and without jurisdiction.
4. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not quashing the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, although no notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- made by Ld. AO to the total income of Sh.Dhupan Singh on account of cash deposited in his bank account. Ld. CIT(A) even ignored the fact that appellant was a 70 years old man and didn’t even grant him benefit of current year’s income & past years savings. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”
2. During the course of hearing, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that he does not wish to press Ground Nos. 2 &
4. Therefore, Ground Nos.2 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed as not pressed.
3. Ground Nos. 1 & 6 are general in nature, need no separate adjudication.
4. The only effective ground in assessee’s appeal is against the sustaining the addition of Rs.22,00,000/-.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee had not filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) as per information available regarding cash deposits with Indian Overseas Bank, Gour College, Rohtak amounting to Rs.38,00,000/- therefore, the assessment was re-opened. A notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued to the assessee. However, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs.38,00,000/-, being the unexplained cash deposits into the bank account of the assessee.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) treated Rs.16,00,000/- out of the total deposited amount as explained and rest of the cash deposited was treated as unexplained and therefore, sustained the addition of Rs.22,00,000/-.
Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate, vehemently argued that authorities below failed to appreciate the fact in right perspective. He contended that the assessee has been earning agricultural income and there is no dispute with regard to earning of agricultural income by the assessee. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that Ld.CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee and also accepted the factum of earning of agricultural income but the Ld.CIT(A) did not treat the agricultural income sufficient to make savings after meeting the household expenses on presumption basis.
On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that Ld.CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order and also gave part relief to the assessee. There is no infirmity into the impugned order.
I have heard contentions of the Ld. Authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen that Ld.CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the factum of earning of agricultural income by the assessee. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be inferred that the assessee was having some past savings out of agricultural income. Therefore, in my considered view, the authorities below were not justified for not giving set off Page | 3 against the past savings out of the agricultural income by the assessee. The assessee has been earning agricultural income quite a long time. Therefore, it can be presumed that the assessee was having atleast Rs.8,00,000/- out of the past savings. Therefore, the addition is further reduced to Rs.8,00,000/- and rest of the addition is sustained in the absence of the supporting evidences. Thus, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms stated herein before.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th April, 2022.