Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order that treated a Rs. 10 lakh cash deposit in her bank account as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The deposit was claimed to be from the sale of agricultural land. The assessment order was passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147, and the assessee's return was not filed.
Held
The Tribunal found that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the department and provide all necessary documents, including the sale deed and land holding certificates.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposit in the bank account, claimed to be from the sale of agricultural land, is to be treated as undisclosed income and whether procedural lapses in submitting additional evidence warrant a remand.
Sections Cited
253, 1961, 250, 144, 147, 246A, 2(14), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
the order bearing Number ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070246499(1) dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13
Page 1 of 7 - A.Y. 2012-13 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012.
FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed at Rs.10 lakh. No income Tax Return was filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13. That the assessee had deposited Rs.10 lakh in cash in her S.B account during Assessment Year 2012-13. The source of cash deposit was not verifiable. That the aforesaid assessment order dated 30.11.2019 is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein.
2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal
Page 2 of 7 - A.Y. 2012-13 and has raised following grounds of appeal in the Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-
“1.Non-Consideration of Additional Evidence: The appellant acknowledges a procedural lapse in submitting additional evidence during the appeal without a Rule 46A petition. A formal petition under Rule 46A is proposed to explain the delayed submission, citing lack of professional assistance and late receipt of documents.2.Clarification on Sale Deed Authenticity and Dates: The duplicate sale deed obtained on May 20, 2019, was misinterpreted by the AO. The original transaction date of May 18, 2011, is corroborated by registry details, including signatures and stamps of the Sub-Registrar. The appellant submitted additional evidence, including an affidavit confirming the agricultural nature of the land and its location beyond municipal limits, classifying it as non-capital under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.3. Bank Deposit Justification: The appellant claims that the deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- in the bank account is from the sale of agricultural land, not undisclosed income under Section 68”.
Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 13.10.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that the “impugned order” is illegal, not proper and is in the violation of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the assessee is not a English knowing person. The assessee is also not aware of Tax laws. That no application within the meaning of Rule 46A was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), which lapse is Page 3 of 7 - A.Y. 2012-13 acknowledged as a procedural lapse. Our attention was invited to para 6.2 & 6.3 of the “impugned order”. It was submitted that the assessee had sold agriculture land of Rs.9.5 lakh as per sale deed dated 18.5.2011. Further she also collected the registry and other charges from the buyer and then deposited Rs.10 lakh in her saving bank account maintained with SBI A/c No.31724938137 on 19.05.2011. The agriculture land was situated at more than 25 km away from the local limit of Bhopal therefore it was not a capital asset as per definition of capital asset described in Section 2(14) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) held this as additional evidence and was of the opinion that there is no application u/s 46A of the Rules framed under the Act in this regard. The Ld. AR then invited to our attention to the sale deed document dated 18.05.2011 and basis first page of the document contended that one Rajendra Sahu had obtained a copy of the said sale deed on 29.05.2019 by paying fee of Rs.100/-. Therefore the reliance on “stamp duty payment slip” for the purpose of obtaining copy of sale deed (supra) which is dated 29.05.2019 is erroneous. The sale deed is however dated 18.05.2011. The Ld. AR then took us through the entire sale
Page 4 of 7 - A.Y. 2012-13 deed document to demonstrate that the correct date is 18.05.2011 and not 29.05.2019. The Ld. AR has also placed reliance on land records of the assessee and so also on the certificate issued by Naib Thsildar dated 10.12.2021. It was finally pleaded by the Ld. AR that the “impugned order” under the circumstances be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the file of Ld. A.O where the assessee would give full cooperation to the department. The Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the revenue contended that the department has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Ld. A.O for fresh adjudication on denovo basis. The Ld. DR however stated that cost of Rs.2000/- be imposed on the assessee for her non compliances. The Ld. AR then agreed for the same and stated that the same shall be paid as and by way of a challan in the category “others” in favour of Income Tax Department.
Observations,findings & conclusions.
4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of the “impugned order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us.
Page 5 of 7 - A.Y. 2012-13 4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as presented to this Tribunal by both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by following the due process.
4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the rival contentions are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order” should be set aside and matter be remanded back to the file of Ld. A.O for the purpose of fresh adjudication and adjudgment so that real income of the assessee is determined and computed in accordance with the law. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the department and to produce all the necessary information and documents including sale deed dated 18.05.2011, land holding certificate and certificate of Naib Tehsildar as aforesaid including other documents so that the real income can be quantified/determined by the Ld. A.O.
4.4 In view of the above, we set aside the “impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of Ld. A.O on denovo basis.
The Ld. A.O would give effective and meaningful opportunity to the assessee to plead her case and would thereafter pass a Page 6 of 7 - A.Y. 2012-13 speaking and reasoned order on merits. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the department.
Order 5.1 In view of the aforesaid the “impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of the Ld. A.O on denovo basis with the directions as aforesaid.
5.2 In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 15.10.2025.