SOHAN SINGH ,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 616/AGR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 February 2025AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 20.00 lakhs was explained by the land transactions, and the balance Rs. 1.18 lakhs was accepted as agricultural income. The Tribunal also allowed the benefit of telescoping for the investment, as the explained cash deposit exceeded the investment amount.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added cash deposits of Rs. 21.18 lakhs and unexplained investment of Rs. 17,54,600/- to the assessee's income. The assessee attributed the cash deposit to on-money from land transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits and investments made by the assessee were adequately explained. Whether the benefit of telescoping could be applied to the investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

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, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Pronounced: 13.02.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

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’).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →