Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's three appeals relate to unexplained cash deposits in assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained, and this was upheld by the lower appellate authorities. The assessee claimed the deposits were from previous withdrawals.
Held
The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessee's explanation that the deposits stemmed from previous withdrawals, though not satisfactorily explained to lower authorities. A lump sum addition was deemed appropriate for the first two assessment years, while the addition for the third year was directed to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits are unexplained and require addition to income, or if they are satisfactorily explained by previous withdrawals.
Sections Cited
147, 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
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bal Ram, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 7-B, Village Ward-1(2), Kakrola, Bhangrola, Gurgaon-122001 Gurgaon-122103 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEMPB7612R Assessee by: Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals 2192 & 2193/Del/2025, for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073776199(1), 1073777401(1) & 1073777640(1) dated 27.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have inter alia treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.19,92,992/- and Rs.2,45,389/-; 2192 & 2193/Del/2025 Bal Ram assessment year wise, respectively, as unexplained, in the corresponding assessments framed by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld in the respective lower appellate proceedings.
This being the factual backdrop, a combined perusal of all these case files inter alia reveals that even the learned Assessing Officer fairly accepts in A.Y. 2010-11 at page 3 para (a) that the assessee had already withdrawn Rs.65,50,000/- from his bank account on 01.09.2008, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- on 17.09.2008 and 24.10.2008; respectively. The factual position is hardly any different in the second assessment year A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the assessee had made similar withdrawals of Rs.41,80,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- from Indian Bank and Bank of India; respectively. It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal finds prima facie merit in the assessee’s explanation attributing source of the impugned cash deposits to his previous withdrawals; although, not satisfactorily explained before the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- in first and foremost A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.2,00,000/- in second assessment year 2011-12 would meet the ends of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. So far as the third addition of Rs.2,45,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13 (supra) is concerned, the same
No other ground or arguments has been pressed before us.