VIKRANT SANDAL,HOSHIARPUR, PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD 5(4), CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR,JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.919/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Vikrant Sandal ITO Ward – 5(4) Gali No.1, Krishna Colony Chandigarh बनाम/ Vs. Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur Punjab – 144205 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ASCPS-6748-M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Smt. Rano Jain (Advocate) a/w Ms. Mansi Jain (Advocate) – Ld. ARs ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02-06-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 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 06-06-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 12-12-2017. The grievance of the assessee is confirmation of three additions of Rs.73.86 Lacs, Rs.23.26 Lacs &

Rs.3.99 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. From case records, it emerges that the assessees’ case was reopened by Ld. AO and a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 26-03-2017 to examine the issues of investments in purchase of property, cash deposits and credit card payments in cash. The assessee did not file his Income Tax Returns. Accordingly, forming an opinion of escapement of income of Rs.101.91 Lacs, the case was reopened and these issues were subject matter of scrutiny assessment. 3. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee had purchased certain agricultural land situated at Village Randhara, Tehsil Dasuya. The assessee furnished relevant bank statements and purchase deed to state that investment was sourced by his mother. The various payments made in connection with purchase of property has been tabulated at Page-3 of the assessment order. The payment of Rs.5 Lacs was paid through Cheque No.265555 from mother’s account (Smt. Maina Sandal) whereas Rs.68.86 Lacs was paid through RTGS from the same bank account of assessee’s mother. The cost of stamp paper for Rs.3,69,300/- and registration & other expenses for Rs.12,700/- was stated to be funded out of cash withdrawals from same account on 07-10-2009. However, the assessee failed to produce her mother for verification. In the result, Ld. AO made three additions of unexplained investment In property for Rs.73.86 Lacs, addition of cash deposit for Rs.23.36 Lacs and addition of credit card payment in cash

for Rs.3.99 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds as urged by the assessee and confirmed the assessment on merits. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. First, we take up the issue of investment in purchase of property for Rs.73.86 Lacs. From the tabulation made by Ld. AO at Page No.3 of the assessment order, it could be seen that substantial payment towards purchase of property has been made through banking channel from mother’s bank account. The bank statement of assessee’s mother Smt. Maina Sandal has been placed on record. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that the amount of Rs.5 Lacs has been paid through banking channel on 10-06-2009. Another payment of Rs.68.86 Lacs has also been paid through banking channel on 08-10-2009. These payments are duly sourced out of various bank credits received in that account. The payment of stamp paper and registration expenses are sourced out of cash withdrawals from the said bank account on 01- 10-2009. The Ld. AO has rejected assessee’s claim merely on the ground that the assessee did not produce her mother for verification. However, the perusal of bank transactions make it amply clear that the investments in the stated property have been funded out of the bank account of assessee’s mother only and therefore, no addition thereof could be made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO could not examine the ‘source of source’ for this year. In the absence of any positive evidence indicating any unexplained investment by the assessee, the impugned addition of Rs.73.86 Lacs could not be sustained. We order so.

ITAT CHANDIGARH