Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 45.01 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits for AY 2011-12, arising from reassessment proceedings under sections 147 r.w.s. 144. She claimed the deposits were from the sale of agricultural land by her husband and agricultural land lease money.
Held
The Tribunal confirmed the validity of the reassessment but acknowledged that a major portion of the cash deposits was likely "on-money" from agricultural land transactions. While the assessee did not fully prove the source, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 5,00,000/-, granting relief for Rs. 40.01 lakhs.
Key Issues
Validity of reopening under sections 147/148 and treatment of cash deposits from agricultural land transactions as unexplained income.
Sections Cited
section 147, section 144, section 148, Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI (SMC
Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sudes Devi, VPO Karthan, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Samalkha, Panipat, Haryana Ward-4, Panipat. PAN : CPOPD3063H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None (Adjournment rejected) Department by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, 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/250/2023-24/1052895057(1) dated 17.05.2023 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Cases called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. I accordingly proceeded ex parte against the appellant.
Mr. Bansal (learned DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly initiated section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee after taking cognizance of her cash deposits amounting to Rs.45.01 lakh, made in the relevant previous year.
It is in this backdrop, I first of all adjudicate the grounds raised
against validity of impugned reopening, that no prima facie tangible material was there in possession.
5. It emerges during the course of hearing that learned lower authorities rightly set into motion section 148/147 proceedings, as there indeed existed relevant tangible material in the appellant’s case. I, accordingly, reject assessee’s corresponding grounds in this appeal.
6. Next comes the assessee’s sole substantive ground on merits that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on fact in treating her impugned cash deposits of Rs.45.01 lakh as unexplained.
7. A perusal of the case file indicates that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.35.25 lakhs as cash component derived from sale of her agricultural land. There is no dispute that even the learned Assessing Officer had, in fact, found her husband, Sh. Jasmer Singh to have owned and sold the corresponding
2 | P a g e agricultural land admeasuring 18 Kanals and 16 Marlas. It is made clear that Shri Jasmer Singh has not been found to have made any cash deposits in his account. Faced with this situation, the only inference, which prima facie is drawn in assessee favour is that at least a major portion of her cash deposit, in fact, is in the nature of on-money derived by her husband and deposited in her account. The factual position would be hardly different regarding the latter component amounting to Rs.9.16 lakhs wherein the appellant appears to have admittedly claimed as lease money from 6 acres of agricultural land which is nowhere in dispute.