NITIN KUMAR,HASSANGARH vs. ITO, WARD - 3, ROHTAK

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.27.80 lakhs as unexplained thereby rejecting his explanation to have received the same as cash from his grandfather, namely, Late Sh. Mangat Ram (since deceased now). 4. Learned counsel has further filed a copy of various sale deeds executed by his late grandfather and submits that the cash deposits herein in fact represents gifts, which in turn, are nothing but part of the said sale consideration only and therefore, the impugned addition is not sustainable. The Revenue’s vehement contention, on the other hand, is that it was assessee’s bounden duty only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings, which he has failed all along. 5. Be that as it may, the clinching nexus which is noticed during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s grandfather had executed various sale deeds in the month of July, 2010 followed by the corresponding five cash deposits made in the assessee’s name in the month of August, 2010 to January, 2011. It is thus observed that these cash deposits couldn’t be altogether denied the benefit of the sale consideration money to some extent. This is indeed 3 | P a g e coupled with these facts that the assessee has not satisfactorily discharged the onus of proving all relevant facts before the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum of addition of Rs.10 lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets the relief of Rs.17.80 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th January, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)