Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)/NFAC order for AY 2011-12, which arose from an assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The Assessing Officer had added Rs.48,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits, and the CIT(A) denied a Section 54B deduction of Rs.25,00,000/- while sustaining an addition of Rs.9,00,000/- related to cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/- under Section 54B, finding it an invalid enhancement that introduced a new head of income. Regarding the Rs.9,00,000/- cash deposits, considering the assessee's land sales and unproved agricultural receipts, the Tribunal confirmed a lump sum addition of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(A)'s disallowance of Section 54B deduction amounted to an invalid enhancement. 2. The correctness of the addition for unexplained cash deposits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 144, 54B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Satish, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 680, Nirjan, Ward-1, Jind Haryana-126102 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DFUPS0022C Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069617638(1) dated 11.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the valuable assistance coming from the department side that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his section 144 assessment in the assessee’s case on 05.12.2018 adding the assessee’s entire cash deposits of Rs.48,00,000/- as unexplained. And that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC on the other hand has denied section 54B Satish deduction of Rs.25,00,000/- on the one hand and sustained the remaining addition of Rs.9,00,000/- of cash deposits going by the Assessing Officer’s remand report. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. So far as the assessee’s former disallowance/addition u/s 54B deduction is concerned, the same is found to be an instance of enhancement and not sustainable in law since, amounting to adding a new head of income of going by CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del). The impugned disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/- stands deleted therefore.
Next comes the second substantive issue of correctness of the assessee’s cash deposits addition amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. It has come on record that the assessee and his family members had infact sold/transferred lands/capital assets in the relevant financial year. Necessary presumption which would arise in such an instance prima facie is that these cash deposits represent cash component of the assessee’s sale consideration going by Smt. Malini Ramnath Rele vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (TM).
Satish 6. The fact however remains that the assessee has not been reconciled the corresponding facts and figures before learned lower authorities. He also appears to have claimed dairy and agricultural receipts of Rs.4,20,000/- whose details nowhere have been proved. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.5,00,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. It is made clear before parting that the impugned addition(s) shall now be treated to be confirmed to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- only.