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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3936/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed a nexus between the grandfather's sale deeds and the cash deposits. However, the assessee failed to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proof. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was deemed just and proper.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 27.80 lakhs in cash, claiming it was a gift from his deceased grandfather. The lower authorities added this amount as unexplained income. The assessee presented sale deeds of his grandfather to support his claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were adequately explained as gifts from his deceased grandfather, and if not, what portion of the addition was sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.01.2025Pronounced: 06.01.2025

Date of hearing 06.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 06.01.2025 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/250/2024-25/1067079208 (1), dated 26.07.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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

2 | 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →