Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, had unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 25,48,000/- in his bank account for A.Y. 2011-12. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, making an addition for the deposits through a best judgment assessment due to non-compliance. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, finding the assessee's explanation of agricultural land sale unsupported by sufficient evidence at that stage.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee is an agriculturist and presented additional documents (though not filed before lower authorities). To ensure a fair opportunity and proper examination of facts, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the Jurisdictional AO for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present all relevant documents.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid; whether the cash deposits of Rs. 25,48,000/- were unexplained; and whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the source of deposits from the sale of agricultural land.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147, 148, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH : JAIPUR
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD
This appeal at the instance of assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 (A.Y.) is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 07/09/2023 framed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') which is arising out of the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 12/11/2018.
Registry has informed that there is a delay of 439 days, however, as per the assessee, impugned order was served upon him on 06/02/2025 and immediately thereafter assessee has filed the present appeal, before this Tribunal.
I have carefully gone through the material on record and also heard the ld. DR and find that since the assessee has been communicated the impugned order on 06/02/2025 and the appeal
2 ITA.No.188/JPR/2025 (Puran Chand) has been filed on 11/02/2025, there is no delay in filing the present appeal and I proceed the appeal admit for adjudication.
The sole grievance of the assessee is that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,48,000/- made by the Ld.AO on account of unexplained cash deposits during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. Based on the information about cash deposits of Rs. 25,48,000/-, Ld.AO, after receiving prior approval, issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 27/03/2018, but there was no compliance. Even on the subsequent notice issued u/s.142(1), the assessee failed to comply, as a result, Ld.AO concluded the reassessment proceedings by passing the best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act making addition for the total cash deposits of Rs. 25,48,000/- found it to be unexplained.
6 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the assessee firstly made arguments challenging the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act stating that assessment has been reopened without applying mind and no proper enquiry was made. On merits, he submitted that assessee is an agriculturist and sale agreement entered into for sale of family agricultural land on 14/04/2010 and the sale consideration received against the sale agreement has been 3 ITA.No.188/JPR/2025 (Puran Chand) deposited in the bank account. He also referred to the detailed written submissions placed on record along with copies of agreement, copy of bank passbook; and prayed that no addition deserves to be sustained.
On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that assessee had not appeared before the Ld.AO in spite of being served various notices and also the documents which are placed before this Tribunal were not filed before the Ld.CIT(A). He, however, raised no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) for re-adjudication of the facts of the case.
I have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before me.
The assessee is an individual, cash deposits of Rs.25,48,000/- stand deposited in his bank account held with Punjab and National Bank. Admittedly, the assessee is non-filer and is also not filed return incompliance to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and even not appeared before the Ld.AO in spite of being provided sufficient opportunities. Even before the Ld.CIT(A), on first three occasions, assessee did not respond and thereafter furnished few details and the Ld.CIT(A) not satisfied with those details, confirmed the order of the Ld.AO observing as under:-
“5.2 I have considered the submissions made by the appellant on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case along with the order of the AO and perused the material available on record. The A.O. has made addition of Rs. 25,48,000/- under head income from other sources as during the assessment proceedings the appellant could not submit any evidences before the A.O. During the appellate proceedings, in response to hearing notices, the appellant filed copy of agreement (Notarised on Plain Paper, Stamp Paper is not used) executed on 14.04.2010 regarding proposal to sell agricultural land.
4 ITA.No.188/JPR/2025 (Puran Chand) Such a self-serving agreement may be cancelled at any time at a later date. It is interesting to note that this agreement is not executed on a stamp paper and is also not registered with the Sub-registrar of properties. The appellant has contended that the cash deposits in his bank account relate to advances received from a party to whom the said land was proposed to be sold. However, the appellant has not filed the copy of sale deed till date. The impugned agreement to sell dated 14.04.2010 appears to be an afterthought by which the appellant is trying to justify the cash deposits made in his bank account. In the absence of a sale deed, the cash deposits in the appellant bank account remain unexplained. The appellant has been provided with ample opportunities as discussed in Para No. 4.1 but the appellant could not furnish any further evidences/details in support of cash deposits in his bank account. Accordingly, it is clear that the appellant has not discharged the burden of proof as required under the respective provisions to explain the source of the cash deposited in the bank account. Hence the ground of appeal is not allowed.”
Before me, learned counsel for the assessee apart from challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings has also furnished copy of sale agreement, advance money receipts, copy of bank passbook and copies of registered sale deeds. Ld. AR has accepted that copies of registered sale deeds were not filed before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering all these facts and also observing that assessee is an agriculturist and the source of alleged cash deposits is claimed to be sale consideration received from sale of agricultural land owned by his family members, but since, assessee could not appear before the Ld.AO and also could not file complete details before the Ld.CIT(A), in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, I deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal back to the file of the JAO for carrying-out denovo assessment proceedings after giving the assessee fair opportunity of hearing and also proper opportunity to file the documents. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5 ITA.No.188/JPR/2025 (Puran Chand) 12. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.08.2025.