Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, had a cash deposit of Rs. 77,27,500/- in a joint bank account. The Assessing Officer added 50% of this amount, Rs. 38,63,750/-, under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which the CIT(A) partially upheld after deleting Rs. 5 lacs. The assessee contended that the source of the deposit was the sale proceeds of agricultural land (two parcels sold for Rs. 51 lacs each) and redeposits from prior withdrawals by him and his brothers totaling Rs. 66.72 lacs from their savings account.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient and explained source for the deposits, rejecting the CIT(A)'s reasoning that it was not humanly possible to keep money for such a long period. The Tribunal concluded that there was a substantial amount available within the family from agricultural land sales and withdrawals. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the bank account, claimed as proceeds from the sale of agricultural land and re-deposits from earlier withdrawals, constitute unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 21.09.2023 passed for assessment year 2016-17.
The assessee has taken five grounds of appeal
, however, his grievance revolves around single issue, namely, ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of A.Y.2016-17
2. Rs.33,63,750/- which was added by the AO with the aid of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3. The assessee is an agriculturist. He has filed his return of income on 14.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,01,420/- and agriculture income at Rs.52,318/-. The AO has observed that there was a joint account with his brother with Axis Bank where a sum of Rs.77,27,500/- was deposited in cash. The AO confronted the assessee to explain the source of this deposit and ultimately made addition of 50% of the total deposit amounting to Rs.38,63,750/-.
4. On appeal, ld. CIT (Appeals) has given partial relief and deleted a sum of Rs.5 lacs out of the total addition made by the AO.
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. The stand of the assessee was that he alongwith his brother and his mother sold two parcels of agriculture land for a sum of Rs.51 lacs and Rs.51 lacs. The source of the deposit was sale proceeds of alleged agriculture land. The Sale Deeds were executed on 02.11.2015 and 03.12.2014. The assessee, alongwith his A.Y.2016-17 3 brothers has withdrawn Rs.66.72 lacs from the Saving Bank Account which was redeposited.
On due consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that assessee has a sufficient source of alleged deposits. He alongwith his brother made huge withdrawals from this Bank Account. The funds in this account were deposits made out of sale proceeds of agriculture land. Copies of the Sale Deed have been placed on record before us as well as before the CIT (Appeals). We have perused the finding of the CIT (Appeals). The only reasoning given by the First Appellate Authority is that it is not humanly possible that somebody would keep this money for such a long period with oneself. We are of the view that prima-facie there was substantial amount available in the family. Now it is quite different as to how somebody will arrange his affairs. The human behaviour cannot be expected to be carried on a particular manner according to the understanding of the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, it is not justifiable at the end of the CIT (Appeals) to confirm the addition simply for the reason that he disbelieves the manner in which money was kept by the A.Y.2016-17 4 individuals. Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on 05.08.2025.