RANJEET KAUR,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAssessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Ranjeet Kaur, 357/25, Jalghar Gali, Parvatiya Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana Vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad PAN: ARGPK4658R (Appellant)
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National
Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059829068(1), dated
17.01.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. Delay of 14 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeals stands condoned as per her contentions/averments explaining reasonable cause on account of the situation beyond her control.
Assessee by Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CA
Sh. Surender Kr., Adv.
Department by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
01.04.2025
Date of pronouncement
01.04.2025
2 | P a g e
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the assessee’s cash deposits aggregating to Rs.24.10 lakhs, as unexplained; in the course of assessment framed on 21.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. The assessee’s case as per her paper-book on record is that the impugned cash in fact represents cash component of sale deed pertaining to agricultural lands, dated 11.05.2012, wherein, the vendee(s) concerned had paid advances to her and her mother, involving varying sums. Learned counsel has also placed on record the above stated sale deed dated 11.05.2012. Necessary presumption which would arise in such an instance, going by the Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele Vs. Third Income-Tax Officer on [1994] 49 ITD 43 (TM) (MUM), is that keeping in mind the time span between the assessee’s cash deposits and the sale deed would indicate that this cash deposit represents cash consideration only. The fact, however, remains that the assessee has not proved here case to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to uphold the impugned addition of Rs.24.10 lakhs to a lumpsum amount of 3 | P a g e
Rs.2 lakhs only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets the relief of Rs.22.10 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st April, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 1st April, 2025. RK/-