Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order concerning cash deposits of Rs. 11,00,000/-. The assessee, an agriculturist owning land, failed to explain the source of these deposits, leading to an addition in assessment.
Held
The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the entire addition, acknowledging the assessee's status as an agriculturist. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, considering the agricultural income from the lands owned and leased by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits of an agriculturist can be added in full without considering their potential origin from agricultural income, and if a partial addition is warranted.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Rishi Raj, Vs Income Tax Officer, Kharkhoda, Ward-5, Sonipat, Haryana-131001 Sonipat, Haryana-131001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AWOPR6954Q Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079300403(1) dated 05.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the impugned addition of the assessee’s cash deposits amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- has been rightly made in his hands as he had failed to explain source thereof in the course of assessment framed on 11.12.2019 as well as the lower appellate discussion.
Rishi Raj 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. I find no reason to sustain the impugned addition in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee admittedly happens to be an agriculturist being owner in possession of lands admeasuring at least 4.5 acres which is not in dispute. The fact further remains that he has also claimed 4 acres in the capacity of a lessee which has not been specifiedly rebutted in both the lower proceedings. That being the case, the necessary inference which would arise in such an instance is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represent the assessee’s agricultural income derived from the foregoing agricultural lands. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.10,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow.