Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the lower authorities' action of treating a cash deposit of Rs. 31,32,000/- as unexplained. The learned counsel argued that the cash deposits prima facie represented the cash component in sales deeds executed by the assessee's father.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not filed a specific reconciliation of the cash deposits, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,32,000/- would be just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent. The accumulated interest income from the deposits was held to be duly explained.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 31,32,000/- was unexplained, and if so, what would be the appropriate addition. Whether the accumulated interest income from the deposits was explained.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
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 : 2012-13 Pankaj Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, Offc. No. 104, First Floor, Durga Ward-2(2)(1), Chamber, RDC, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BCHPT4947H Assessee by: Ms. Harshita, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056040634(1) dated 13.09.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel representing assessee makes it clear at the outset that she is only pressing his sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposit of Rs.31,32,000/- as unexplained, in the course of assessment framed on 18.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Pankaj Tyagi 4. Learned counsel has invited tribunal’s attention to pages 17 to 74 in the assessee’s paper book indicating his father to have executed various sales in the relevant previous year. The assessee inference in such a situation; as per Smt. Malini Ramnath Rele vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (TM), which would arise is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie the cash component in the above sale deeds. That being the case, the facts also remains that the assessee has not filed specific reconciliation of the impugned cash deposits vis-à-vis cash component alleged in the above sale deed. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,32,000/- 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.30,00,000/- in other words. So far as the accumulated interest income derived from the above deposits of Rs.30,014/- is concerned, the same is held has duly explained in light of the above detailed discussion. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.