BHUPENDER SANDHU,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(4), HAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8224/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2026AY 2021-22Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee provided an explanation regarding agricultural lands and crop cultivation, it was not satisfactorily proven to the lower authorities. However, the possibility of cash deposits arising from crop sales and savings could not be entirely ruled out. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/- was deemed appropriate.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2021-22, arising from an order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's cash deposits of Rs.17,00,000/- were treated as unexplained, with an addition of Rs.8,12,300/- made under section 69A. The assessee claimed these deposits originated from the sale of crops and past savings from agricultural lands.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were sufficiently explained by agricultural income and savings, and if not, what would be the appropriate addition to the income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079455083(1) dated 10.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Delay of 9 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned

1.

Bhupender Sandhu Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A)/NFAC have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.17,00,000/- as an unexplained followed by section 69A addition of Rs.8,12,300/- made in his hands; in assessment order dated 26.12.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

5.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that going by the assessee’s explanation extracted in para 2.4.3 at page 5 of the assessment order, he and his parents have stated to have been owned and cultivated agricultural lands measuring 6.0400 hectares in the revenue estate of Village-Akhapur, Garh Mukteshwar, Hapur. He has further claimed that he had cultivated banana and other crops thereupon which has not been pleaded and proved in the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. The fact however remains that possibility of such cash deposits involving sale of crop in cash and past accumulated savings could not be all together ruled out as well. It is thus deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/- in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The same shall take care of both the impugned latter addition made by the learned lower authorities as well. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →