ASHOK KUMAR SYAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 70 (5), DELHI

Delay of a day in filing of the assessee’s/Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating its cash deposits of Rs. 18,50,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A in the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 as upheld in the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion.

It is noticed that the assessee had sold his land on 12.04.2019 for a sale consideration of Rs. 18,50,000/- and received advance of Rs. 4 lakhs as per sale deed executed on 31.05.2016. There is hardly any dispute that the assessee had indeed deposited the impugned cash on various occasions during demonetization period i.e. between 01.04.2016 to 31.12.2017 in his bank account maintained with M/s Bank of Baroda.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue seeks to buttress the point that it was the assessee’s onus all along to plead and prove the necessary reconciliation and verification of the impugned cash deposits vis-à-vis his sale consideration pertaining to the transfer of all agricultural lands. I find only a part merit in the Revenue’s stand to this effect. I wish to make it clear that going by Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele Vs. Third Income-Tax Officer on [1994] 49 ITD 43 (TM) (MUM), the necessary inference which would arise in the assessee’s favour is that given the fact that he had sold/transferred his ancestral agricultural lands, possibility of his cash deposits representing the sale price over and above that adopted by the registration authority(ies) could not be altogether denied although he could not prove all the facts to the

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.