KAMAL MITTAL,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-5(2)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

PDF

ITA 6129/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: the First Appellate Authority the assessee duly submitted relevant set of documents in order to substantiate the source of cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization. However, it appears from the record that no endeavour has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this very aspect of the matter which was duly established by corroborative evidences including sale-deed, legal heirs certificate etc. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter the Ld. DR has not been abl3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 7,65,000/- made under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee claimed the source was her 1/3rd share (Rs. 10,00,000/-) from the sale of agricultural joint property, but this claim was not accepted by the AO due to lack of initial documents and was sustained by the CIT(A) without considering subsequently submitted corroborative evidence.

Held

The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantiated the source of the cash deposits through documents like the sale deed and legal heirs certificate. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the lower authorities demonstrated non-application of mind, was bad in law, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore deleted the addition.

Key Issues

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization, claimed to be from the sale of agricultural land, were properly treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, and if the lower authorities erred by not considering the corroborative evidence provided by the assessee.

Sections Cited

143(3), 69A, 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, Adv

Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 22.04.2025

O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NAC/S/250/2024-25/1070425836(1)], arising out of the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the AO, Ward 5(2)(1), Kanpur, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2017-18.

In the instant appeal the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 7,65,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act, on account of unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank accounts during demonetization period.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that during F.Y. 2015-16 the assessee sold her agricultural joint property and received Rs. 10,00,000/- being 1/3rd of the sale proceeds which was deposited by her in bank accounts. It is relevant to mention that the assessee along with her two sons, namely, Sanjay and Rittam, are the other two legal heirs of the property belonged to her deceased husband, who died on 16.02.2012. When the query was made by the Ld. AO, she could not place the fact along with documents but replied to this particular fact of receiving money to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- out of such sale of land. The Ld. AO in the absence of any corroborative evidence added the same in the hands of the assessee.

Before the First Appellate Authority the assessee duly submitted relevant set of documents in order to substantiate the source of cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization. However, it appears from the record that no endeavour has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this very aspect of the matter which was duly established by corroborative evidences including sale-deed, legal heirs certificate etc. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter the Ld. DR has not been able to justify the order passed by the authorities below.