POONUSAMY LAKSHMI,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(5), ERODE, ERODE
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 noted that the assessee, an elderly housewife, had explained the cash deposits as sale proceeds from agricultural land. Despite the purchasers' statement to the AO, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was plausible given the circumstances.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return. Upon reopening of assessment, she declared income from the sale of land for Rs. 74,50,000, explaining cash deposits in her bank account as sale proceeds. However, the purchasers stated they only paid Rs. 3,18,000 as per the agreement.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, explained as sale proceeds of agricultural land, constitute unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI JAGADISH
per the Town Survey records. As per sale document, the land sold is situated in Kottuveerampalayam Main Road near Sathyamangalam Bus Stand . The A.O has not accepted the assessee’s explanation merely because, the purchasers have denied that they have not paid more than the registered value at Rs. 3,18,000/-. The land is situated within the municipal limit . We are aware of the ground situation that lands are sold much above the registered value. The date of cash deposited matches with the date of sale transaction. The principles of preponderance of property, human behavior and circumstantial evidence as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) are to be considered to evaluate the evidences. Assessee has already shown the sales consideration in the return of income and has paid the tax. . We therefore, hold that the A.O and Ld CIT(A) were not justified to reject the assessee’s explanation of cash deposit in bank account. We accordingly, delete the addition made by A.O.
:- 6 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th June, 2024.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
