BEENA YADAV,SOUTH WEST DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2604/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 July 2026AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned cash deposits formed part of the sale consideration from the agricultural land. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land for Rs. 1.50 crore, with her share being Rs. 50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 40,13,000/- on account of cash deposits/credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account represented undisclosed income or were part of the sale consideration from agricultural land.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2604/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Beena Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 355-B, Oberai Farm, New Delhi Ice Fact Wali Gali, Kapashera, New Delhi -110037 PAN: AHCPY2571K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 02.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081612051(1), dated 09.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She. is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

ITA No.2604/Del/2026

2.

Coming to the impugned cash deposits/credits addition of Rs.40,13,000/- in issue, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had sold his agricultural land situated at village Sadrana, Distt. Gorgaon, along with three joint co-owners which involved cash sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as per sale deed dated 17.10.2011, wherein the assessee’s share was Rs.50 lakhs. The above being the clinching factual position, the only inference which would arise herein is that the assessee’s impugned cash deposits form part of the foregoing cash sale consideration as per Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele Vs. Third Income-Tax Officer on [1994] 49 ITD 43 (TM) (MUM); and, therefore, the impugned addition is directed to be deleted in very terms. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

2 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →