Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 616/Agr/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10
Sohan Singh, Village & Post- Vs. Income-tax Officer, Syarol, Block Tappal, Tehsil Ward 1(1), Aligarh. Khair, Aligarh. PAN : IDVPS6043H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. T.M. Shiv Kumar, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 13.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.02.2025
ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 , arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A”)- Aligarh’s order dated 05.03.2018 in Appeal No. 56/2017-18/Aligarh, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
ITA No.616/Agr/2018
It emerges during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had
framed his assessment on 09.12.2016 inter alia adding cash deposits of
Rs.21.18 lakhs and unexplained investment of Rs.17,54,600/-, respectively,
in the assessee’s hands. We next note from a perusal of the learned
CIT(Appeals)’s lower appellate discussion that the assessee had attributed
source of cash deposit to on-money in land transactions executed on
28.05.2008. The Assessing Officer submitted his remand report on
16.01.2018 (page 5 of CIT(Appeals)’s order) finding a clear cut nexus
between assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.20.00 lakhs on 30.05.2008 vis-à-
vis sale deeds herein above. This being the clinching facts, we hereby quote
Smt. B. Jayalakshmi Vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.) and CIT
v .D. M. Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Karn)(HC) that such a remand report
is indeed binding on the department. We accordingly conclude that the
impugned cash deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs out of Rs.21.18 lakhs deserves to
be treated as explained.
Learned counsel highlights the fact that the balance amount of
Rs.1.18 lakh already stands accepted as agricultural income. Thus, we
delete entire cash deposit of Rs.21.18 lakhs made in assessee’s hands in
very terms.
2 | P a g e
ITA No.616/Agr/2018
Next comes the second issue between the parties regarding the
investment amounting to Rs.17,54,600/-, we are of the considered view that
once source of assessee’s cash deposit hereinabove is already more than
the impugned investment, he is held as entitled to get benefit of telescoping
in these peculiar circumstances. We delete the impugned addition therefore.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: *aks/-/Subodh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
3 | P a g e