Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2019-20. Following information about cash deposits of Rs. 1,11,50,000/-, her case was reopened, and an assessment was completed, treating the deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A after she failed to provide documentary evidence for her claim that the funds were from the sale of inherited agricultural land and gold jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, noting its relevance and the genuine reasons for its delayed submission. However, it found material discrepancies in the dates of agreements and receipts, and a lack of verification regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the alleged purchasers. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing a detailed examination of the evidence and verification of the transactions.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits constitute unexplained money under Section 69A or represent sale proceeds of inherited assets, and whether additional evidence should be admitted for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 133(6), 131, 250(6), 2(14), 2(1A), 139, 148, 143(2), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1240/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Padmalatha Vojjala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) PAN:CAJPS9715B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Smt. Padmalatha Vojjala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 18.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who did not file any return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2019–20. Based on information flagged under the Insight Portal pursuant to the risk-management strategy formulated by the CBDT, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) noticed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.1,11,50,000/- in Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. during the relevant previous year. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.2023. The assessee initially did not file any return of income nor respond to statutory notices. Subsequently, on 06.02.2024, the assessee filed a return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act declaring total income of Rs.80,410/-. During the assessment proceedings, notice under section 143(2) dated 26.02.2024 was issued by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO called for details regarding the source of the substantial cash deposits. The assessee filed an affidavit claiming that the deposits represented sale proceeds of inherited agricultural land situated in Shivaru Venkatapur Village as well as sale of inherited gold jewellery received from her father, who was a Veda Pandit. However, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The Ld. AO rejected the explanation and treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Page 3 of 8 Act on 20.03.2024, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,12,30,410/-.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO observing that no evidence of sale of agricultural land or gold jewellery was produced.
5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is a widow and an old aged lady having no independent source of income. It was submitted that she inherited agricultural land and gold jewellery from her father, and the cash deposits in question represent the sale proceeds of such inherited assets. The Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee had filed an affidavit before the Ld. AO explaining the source of the deposits, some crucial documents could not be filed earlier as they were not available with the assessee during the assessment or appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the assessee has filed additional evidence before the Tribunal along with a petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules seeking admission of the same. Inviting our attention to the Adangal/Pahani (page nos.7 to 16 of the additional evidence set), the Ld. AR submitted that the land originally belonged to the assessee’s father and now appearing in the name of the purchaser of the land. He further referred to the receipts issued by the assessee acknowledging cash consideration of Rs.1,25,50,000/-
Page 4 of 8 from various purchasers (page no. 7 to 10 of the additional evidence set) and submitted that out of this cash receipt, only Rs.1,11,50,000/- was deposited into the bank. He also referred to the agreement entered into by the assessee with the purchasers (page nos. 3 to 6 of the additional evidence set) and submitted that the purchasers are identifiable persons whose names appear in the revenue records. The Ld. AR argued that the additional evidence now placed on record is vital for determining the true nature of the cash deposits and that the assessee could not produce it earlier due to genuine difficulties. Hence, he prayed for admission of the additional evidence and restore of the matter to the Ld. AO for fresh examination.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was given adequate opportunities but failed to produce any supporting documentation. It was argued that the assessee did not establish the identity of the alleged purchasers, their capacity to pay such substantial cash amounts, or the genuineness of the claimed sale transactions. Hence, there is no infirmity in the action of the Ld. AO in invoking section 69A of the Act.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has filed copies of Adangal/Pahani, receipts for cash received from alleged purchasers, and an unregistered agreement purportedly relating
Page 5 of 8 to the sale of agricultural land. These documents were not produced before either the Ld. AO or the Ld. CIT(A). On examining the documents, we find that they are crucial for deciding the core issue as to whether the cash deposits of Rs.1,11,50,000/- represent sale proceeds of inherited agricultural land. The assessee has explained the non-production of these documents earlier due to unavailability and genuine circumstances. Considering the relevance, materiality, and necessity of the evidence, we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules.
On perusal of the receipts and the agreement, we note a material discrepancy in the dates. The agreement is dated 10.06.2019 whereas the receipt acknowledging cash consideration is dated 20.06.2019, which is after the date of agreement. However, in the normal course, the date of receipt are prior to the date of the agreement. Furthermore, both the documents had been executed in the financial year 2019-20. To the contrary, major part of the cash is received during the financial year 2018- 19. This inconsistency raises doubt regarding the chronology of events and, consequently, the year of receipt of the alleged sale consideration. Furthermore, the purchasers, who are stated to have collectively paid a huge cash amount of Rs.1,25,50,000/-, have not been subjected to any verification. Their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions require detailed and independent verification. In addition, the sequence of title transfer is of fundamental importance. The Ld. AO is required
Page 6 of 8 to examine whether the agricultural land originally belonged to the assessee’s father, whether it was duly inherited by the assessee in accordance with law and properly reflected in revenue records, and whether the subsequent alleged transfer by the assessee to the purchasers is supported by any valid, contemporaneous documentation. The absence of registered sale deeds, the nature of the receipts, and the fact that the agreement is unregistered also necessitate deeper scrutiny. Since these aspects were never examined by the lower authorities owing to absence of supporting documents at the relevant time, and since the evidence now admitted is central to deciding the issue, we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the lower authorities on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for a fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO shall examine the additional evidence in detail, conduct necessary enquiries including verification of the purchasers, reconcile the inconsistencies noticed in the dates of the documents, and also examine the legal and factual sequence of transfer of land from the assessee’s father to the assessee and thereafter from the assessee to the alleged purchasers. The Ld. AO shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.