TEJ PAL YADAV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NOIDA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including agreements to sell land, sale deeds, and bank account details, along with statements from witnesses. These documents established the source of the cash deposit as sale proceeds from agricultural land.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an agriculturist, declared an income of Rs. 1,49,250/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 25,07,700/- as unexplained cash deposit in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 25,07,700/- as unexplained cash deposit was justified when the assessee provided documentary evidence and witness statements to explain the source of funds from agricultural land sale.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-II”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
per agreement of sale and their statement were recorded by the AO in which they have admitted that they have purchased the agriculture land from Sh. Shadi, the father of the assessee and also admitted that they have made the cash/cheque to the father of the assesee. It is an admitted fact that assessee has submitted all documentary evidence in respect of agreement to sale of land, sale deed of property, sale in accordance with agreement and copy of khasra and khatoni in support of agriculture land, details of cash received and copy of relevant bank account which establishes that these are sufficient evidence for source of deposit of Rs. 25,07,770/- in Andhra Bank. Keeping in view of the above, assessee has well explained the deposit of cash with Andhra Bank Rs. 2507700/- out of sale proceed of agriculture land, hence, the addition made and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified in the eyes of law. Therefore, the addition in dispute is deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2016.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
