SUDES DEVI,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD 4, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 649/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2024AY 2011-12Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Validity of reopening under sections 147/148 and treatment of cash deposits from agricultural land transactions as unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148

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 (SMC

Hearing: 23.12.2024Pronounced: 23.12.2024

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’).

2.

Cases called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. I accordingly proceeded ex parte against the appellant.

3.

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.

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →