RAJVANT KAUR,KARNAL vs. ACIT, KARNAL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member ITA No. 1607/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Rajvant Kaur, Vs ACIT, Gali No. 3, H. No. 486, Shanti Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-12, Nagar, Karnal, Haryana-132001 Karnal, Haryana-132001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CPWPK0410D Assessee by : Sh. Abhishek, CA Revenue by : Sh. Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2026 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083750227(1) dated 16.12.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2 ITA No. 1607/Del/2026 Rajvant Kaur deposits of Rs.1,16,03,750/- as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act; reads as follows: “5. Ground Nos.2, 3 & 4: All these grounds raised by the appellant pertained to the single issue of addition of Rs.1,16,03,750/-. Hence, all these grounds are taken up together for adjudication. 5.2 As per the information available with the department, appellant deposited an amount of Rs.1,97,03,750/- in cash in her savings bank account maintained with AXIS Bank Ltd, village Patti, district Taran Taran, Punjab. The assessment made u/s 147 of the Act, dated 30/03/2016 was set-aside by PCIT, Karnal u/s 263 of the Act vide order dated 07/02/2018. While giving effect to the order u/s 263 of the Act, AO required the appellant to furnish the explanations for the cash deposits made in her bank account. 5.3 Appellant replied that she had sold an agricultural land jointly with her sister-in-law, Smt. Rajmeet Kaur on 19/05/2010 for a consideration of Rs.48,50,000/-. Similarly, another agricultural land was sold by Smt. Gurnam Kaur, Mother-in-law of the appellant, for consideration of Rs.32,50,000/-. Appellant submitted that these sales consideration were received in cash and the same was deposited in her bank account. Appellant also submitted that along with the above mentioned amounts of Rs.81,00,000/- (Rs.48,50,000/- + Rs.32,50,000/-), she had received amounts from sale of seasonal vegetables, cattle, agricultural equipments, trees, gold and silver ornaments and gifts received from brother-in-law were deposited in the bank account. If the absence of any documentary evidence furnished by the appellant, AO accepted only the explanation with regard to Rs.81,00,000/- and treated the balance amount of Rs.1,16,00,000/-(Rs.1,97,03,750/- - 81,00,000/-) as unexplained cash and added the same to the income for AY 2011-12. 5.4 During the course of the appeal proceedings, appellant submitted that she was living in a joint family. The agricultural lands belonging to the joint family were sold for total consideration of Rs.2,37,33,500/- on 19/05/2010. Out of the above consideration, a sum of Rs.37,70,000/- was received in cash on the day of the agreement i.e. 08/10/2009 and the balance of Rs.1,97,03,750/- was received in cash on 19/05/2010 on the day of the registration of the sale deed. The entire cash was deposited in her bank account, Rs.37,70,000/- on 08/10/2009 and Rs.1,97,03,750/- on 19/05/2010.

3 ITA No. 1607/Del/2026 Rajvant Kaur Appellant submitted copies of the sale agreement. Appellant relied on the decision in the case of V Nagarajan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), in appeal no.ITA593/CHNY/2019 dated 18/05/2022. Appellant submitted that the entire cash deposit was made out of the sale consideration received towards sale of agricultural land. Since the same was exempted from tax, with the addition of Rs.1,16,00,000/- was not taxable in the hands of the appellant. Appellant requested the addition may be deleted. 5.5 Appellant’s submissions were carefully considered. AO observed that sales considerations received by the appellant’s family on sale of agricultural land was only Rs.81,00,000/-, as per the registered sale deeds. The sale agreements cannot be considered as evidence since they were not registered. Appellant did not furnish any other documents in the form of confirmation letters from the buyers that they had indeed given cash over and above the consideration mentioned in the sale deed. Thus, in the absence of any supporting document, the amount of Rs.1,16,00,000/- cannot be considered as sale consideration received towards sale of agricultural land. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.1,16,00,000/- is confirmed. Appeal on these grounds is dismissed.” 4. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stand against and in support of the impugned addition. It is made clear that the assessee’s case all along right from day one is that the impugned cash deposits represent the cash component involved in her registered land sale transaction dated 19.05.2010 (supra). And that what all both the learned lower authorities have done is to accept the amount of the Collector rate stated in the sale deed as explained followed by the cash component addition made in her hand forming the sole subject matter of tribunal’s apt adjudication.

4 ITA No. 1607/Del/2026 Rajvant Kaur 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respect stands. Learned counsel quotes Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele Vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43 (Bom.) that given the fact that the assessee’s land transaction(s) already stand proved, the necessary inference which would arise in her favour is that these cash deposits form part of the on-money component only. We wish to emphasize here that hon’ble “Third Member” constitutes a “larger” bench u/s 255(4) of the Act; has already settled the controversy against the department regarding such an undeclared on-money component although the assessee has failed to plead and prove her case to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities. There is further no dispute that no benefit of her accumulated cash-in-hand and saving keeping in mind the relevant socio-economic status etc. has been granted to her. We take into consideration all these facts and circumstances in totality to conclude that a lump sum addition of Rs.5,00,000/- only in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.1,11,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5 ITA No. 1607/Del/2026 Rajvant Kaur 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Naveen Chandra) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR