LAWRENCE SWYNEN BERG,HALDWANI vs. ITO WARD-2(1)(2), HALDWANI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 5, Mumbai’s order dated 09.12.2024 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071002849(1) involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

It emerges at the outset that the appellant herein Sh. Amit Bergis stated to be the legal heir/legal representative of the deceased assessee Sh. Lawrence Swynen Berg and that he is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.8 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE; in assessment order dated 22.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands against and in support of the correctness of the impugned addition. Suffice to say, the deceased assessee is stated to be a defence pensioner who had owned agricultural lands since having disclosed agricultural income therefrom to the tune of Rs.1,26,500/-. This was indeed coupled with his income disclosed from other sources amounted to Rs.1,42,362/- as well.

The case file further indicates that the learned Assessing Officer came across the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.10 lakhs during demonetization which stood added to the extent of Rs.8 lakhs on the ground that he had failed to explain the source during

We find no merit to sustain the impugned addition made by both the learned lower authorities. This for the precise reason that not only the assessee had pleaded and proved that he had sold his immovable property in the preceding assessment year but also both the learned lower authorities have nowhere considered his agricultural lands, accumulated past savings along with socio- economic status all along. We accordingly delete the impugned addition of Rs.8 lakhs made in the assessee’s hands in very terms.