SHRI CHANDAN SINGH,REWARI vs. ` ITO, REWARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 748/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 April 2018AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to examine the genuineness of an Agreement to Sell and its linkage to the cash deposits.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 95,17,000/- in cash into his bank account. He claimed the source was the sale of agricultural land with his brother. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed this, noting deposits were made before the sale deed date.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account can be explained by the sale of agricultural land when deposits precede the sale deed date, and if additional evidence like an Agreement to Sell should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar Aggarwal
For Respondent: Shri B.R. Mishra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.04.2018Pronounced: 23.04.2018

Date of Hearing : 18.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 27.11.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The only effective ground pressed by the ld. AR is against the addition of Rs.75,31,500/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received AIR information divulging that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.95,17,000/- in his bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank, Rewari. On being called upon to explain the source of income, the assessee submitted that he sold agricultural land with his brother and deposited the amount in the bank account. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs.25,83,000/- and Rs.49,48,500/- on account of cash deposits made on 22.06.2006 and 14.09.2006, respectively in his bank account. The contention of the assessee in support of the source of the such deposits, being, that such amount was realized from the sale of land, was turned down by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the deposits were made prior to the date shown in the Sale deed. The ld. CIT(A) echoed the assessment order on this issue. The assessee is aggrieved against the addition.

4.

We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee stated before the authorities below that the amounts deposited by him in his bank account on two different dates came from sale of agricultural land made by him along with his brother. The Assessing Officer, going by the date of the Sale deed, did not accept the genuineness of the transactions since such cash deposits were made prior to the date given in the Sale deed. The ld. AR has placed on record a copy of Agreement to sell such land and requested for the admission of this additional evidence. It was submitted that the assessee could not earlier procure a copy of such an Agreement to sell because of some dispute with the buyer and it was only on the settlement of such dispute that the assessee could get such a copy of such Agreement to sell.

Without going into the genuineness or otherwise of such an Agreement to sell, which is an additional evidence, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for first examining the genuineness of the Agreement to sell and, then, ascertain if cash deposited in the bank account, for which additions have been made, had genuine

Agreement to sell. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such proceedings.

5.

No other ground was pressed by the ld. AR. These grounds, therefore, stand dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 23.04.2018.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →