BALJIT SINGH,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BARNALA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's status as an agriculturist for over 35 years and his age, presuming some savings. Consequently, they confirmed a lump sum addition of Rs. 4 Lacs and deleted the remaining addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a senior citizen agriculturist, appealed against an order confirming an addition of Rs. 10.53 Lacs on account of cash deposits. The original deposit was Rs. 21.64 Lacs, and the CIT(A) deleted Rs. 11.11 Lacs, considering withdrawals and a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs received from a person of questionable creditworthiness.
What were the issues?
Whether a lump sum addition for cash deposits is justified for a senior citizen agriculturist with a long history of agricultural income, considering the source of funds and creditworthiness of third-party transactions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 25-09-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 144 of the Act on 13-12-2018. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of cash deposit for Rs.10.53 Lacs. The registry has noted delay of 48 days in the appeal which stand condoned. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee is a senior citizen having agricultural income for more than 35 years.
The assessee deposited cash of Rs.21.64 Lacs in his bank account. The Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee for want of any reply from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.11.11 Lacs since the same were sourced out of earlier withdrawals. The assessee was stated to have received Rs.10 Lacs from one Shri Jagrup Singh who was found to be having no creditworthiness. Accordingly, the remaining addition was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
It could be seen that the assessee is an agriculturist for over 35 years and considering his age, some savings could be presumed for the assessee. Being an agriculturist, the assessee may not be having concrete evidences to prove the same. Nevertheless, considering the background of the assessee, we confirm lump sum addition of Rs.4 Lacs and delete the remaining addition. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 4
The appeal stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 04-06-2025. (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 04-06-2025. आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant
""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026