Loading judgment…
Facts
During scrutiny assessment, the AO found cash deposits of Rs. 45,82,500/- in the assessee's bank account, which the assessee claimed were from the sale of ancestral agricultural land, with the sale deed showing a cash receipt of Rs. 55,00,000/-. The AO and CIT(A) sustained the addition under Section 69A as unexplained income due to lack of verification and nexus between the deposits and the land sale.
Held
The Tribunal observed a prima facie correlation between the cash receipt mentioned in the sale deed (Rs. 55,00,000/-) and the bank deposits. Since the lower authorities had not verified the certified copy of the sale deed, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the sale deed and confirm the fact of cash receipt. If confirmed, the addition would be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the bank account constituted unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act, and whether the lower authorities erred in not verifying the assessee's claim of receiving cash from the sale of agricultural land.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 69A, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), 271F, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Pulkit Saini, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dt. 22/05/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal against the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147, determining the income of assessee at Rs. 45,86,500/-.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 is against the provisions of the Act as no income has escaped assessment.
3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the documentary evidences produced by the assessee while sustaining the addition of Rs. 45,82,500 u/s 69 of the Act.
4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the ld. AO failed to provide the basic exemption limit while assessing the income.
5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the ex-parte addition without granting adequate opportunity of being heard.
6. That the assessment order is null and void as the same is in violation of CBDT circular no.19/2019 mandating DIN.
2 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring a small taxable income. During the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits aggregating to Rs.45,82,500/- in the bank account of the assessee. When called upon to explain, the assessee submitted that the deposits represented part of the consideration received from the sale of ancestral agricultural land. It was contended that the sale deed clearly recorded that the assessee had received Rs.55,00,000/- in cash from the purchaser. 2.1 The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied. In the absence of independent verification of the sale deed and considering that the assessee had failed to establish a direct nexus between the deposits and the land sale, the AO treated the sum of Rs.45,82,500/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions, observed that the assessee had not furnished cogent evidence before the Assessing Officer to establish that the bank deposits were out of land-sale consideration. The CIT(A) was of the view that the mere assertion of receipt of cash would not suffice unless substantiated with reliable documentation and verification. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.
Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, the Ld. AR reiterated that the registered sale deed categorically records receipt of Rs.55,00,000/- in cash by the assessee. It was argued that once a registered instrument evidences receipt of sale consideration, the source of deposits is explained.