PUSHPALATHA,KOLLAM vs. ITO WARD 2, KOLLAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 691/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to support the explanation that the cash deposit was from the sale consideration of immovable property. Merely offering the income without substantiating its source cannot be accepted. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual deriving salary income, filed ROI for AY 2017-18 showing Rs. 3,69,210/-. The AO completed assessment under Section 143(3) at Rs. 18,17,904/-, making an addition of Rs. 14,63,000/- for cash deposited in specified bank notes (SBNs) during demonetisation, rejecting the assessee's claim that it was sale consideration from property. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, holding that the assessee's explanation regarding the Rs. 14,00,000/- cash consideration was not acceptable.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/-, representing cash deposit in specified bank notes during demonetisation, by rejecting the appellant's explanation that it was part of sale consideration from immovable property offered for capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Shri R.Krishnan, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 29.10.2025Pronounced: 19.11.2025

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pushpalatha .......... Appellant Nandanam, Surabhi Nagar, Ayathil P.O. Kollam 691021 [PAN: BWUPP7350P] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri R.Krishnan, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula [CIT(A)] dated 02.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income from salary. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 21.05.2018 disclosing income of Rs. 3,69,210/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 09.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total income of Rs. 18,17,904/-. While Pushpalatha doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposit in specified bank notes (SBN) during demonetisation period of Rs. 14,63,000/- rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the said cash deposits were made out of sale consideration received on sale of property over and above the sale consideration stated in the registered sale deed and offered to tax under the head ‘capital gains’.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the explanation of the appellant that it had received cash consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/- on sale of property cannot be accepted and also it was shown as part of sale consideration while computing capital gains.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- being cash deposit made in SBN during demonetisation period rejecting the explanation of the appellant that it is part of sale consideration received on sale of immovable property shown while computing capital gains. However, added this amount as income in other sources. It is trite law that sale consideration stated in the sale deed is conclusive evidence in the absence of any evidence on the Pushpalatha contrary. The appellant also failed to produce any evidence in support of the explanation. Merely because the appellant offered the income it cannot be accepted as source of cash deposits. In the circumstances I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned lower authorities.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th November, 2025.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →