DHARAM SINGH,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KURUKSHETRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.779/CHANDI/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Dharam Singh ITO Ward 1 House No. 88, Village – Papsar SCO 24, Sector – 17, बनाम/ Vs. Tehsil Guhla, Kaithal Kurukshetra Haryana – 136118 Haryana – 136035 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. BZTPS-8624-P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Pulkit Saini (Virtual) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 08-07-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 09-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010- 11 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 13.01.2026 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 21.12.2017. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.7.90 Lacs in his savings account on 18.04.2009. The assessee stated that the deposits were

out of sale of agricultural produce. However, it was computed by Ld. AO that the assessee had sold agricultural produce for Rs.5.54 Lacs only and accordingly, the remaining deposit of Rs.2.35 Lacs were added to assessee’s income for want of substantive evidences from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 2807 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 3. From assessee’s condonation petition during first appeal, as kept on Page nos.53 to 57 of the paper-book, it would appear that the delay has been attributed to negligence on the part of assessee’s counsel. The affidavit of the counsel has also been furnished. Apparently, the assessee is in agriculturist and do not hold any knowledge of legal provisions. Therefore, the assessee could not be left to suffer because of professional negligence. 4. On merits, upon perusal of assessee’s computation of income, it could be seen that the assessee has declared business income from Milk Dairy and the benefit of the same has not been granted to the assessee. Further, the accumulation of past savings could also not be ruled out. Considering these twin facts, the source of remaining deposits could not be doubted. Therefore, the impugned addition is not sustainable. I order so.

-Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 09/07/2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH