Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises from an order of the CIT(A). The case was called twice, and the assessee's representative did not appear, leading to ex parte proceedings. The assessee's cash deposit was related to the sale of agricultural land.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the cash deposit was partly from the sale of agricultural land. While the principle was accepted that such deposits could represent on-money components, the assessee failed to reconcile the entire cash deposits with on-money receipts. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed just and proper.
Key Issues
Whether the entire cash deposits of the assessee are to be treated as unexplained income, or if a portion should be reconciled with the sale of agricultural land and potential on-money receipts.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I [(in short the “CIT(A)”], Agra’s order dated 19.09.2019 in Appeal No. ITBA/[e-filed)/CIT(A)-I/Agra/ITO- 1(3)(1)/Mathura/2018-19, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We, accordingly, proceed ex parte against the assessee.
Learned DR vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly assessed the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.45,01,000/- in the relevant previous year as unexplained in the course of assessment.
It is in this factual backdrop that we note that the assessee’s cash deposit was out of sale deed dated 13.09.2010 of agricultural land for Rs.10,00,000/- and balance component thereof could indeed be prescribed to be representing on-money component only. We wish to clarify that the assessee is having no business at all. The sole inference which would arise in the given facts is that the cash deposits herein prima facie form part of sale price of agricultural lands only in light of Smt. Malini Ramnath Rele vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (TM) and decide the instant issue in assessee’s favour and against the department in principle. The fact however remains that the assessee has failed to reconcile his entire cash deposits vis-à-vis the on-money receipts. We thus hold that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- only would be just and proper in the given facts. The assessee gets relief of Rs.43,01,000/- in other words with a rider that the instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2025.