PANKAJ TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

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 2 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.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/05/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)