Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order confirming the addition of Rs. 30,98,000/- made by treating cash deposits in his bank account as unexplained. The assessee claimed these deposits belonged to third parties, Smt. Premvati and Smt. Ishwari, related to property sales and agricultural activities, and that he acted as a broker.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disregarded the assessee's submissions and affidavits, noting the absence of property sale documents or ITRs. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were unexplained or belonged to third parties as claimed by the assessee acting as a broker.
Sections Cited
69A, 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 PARVENDER SHARMA VS. ITO , WARD 5(2)(4), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, NEW DELHI NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH -201 307 (PAN: DQHPS5784P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh.Rohit Sharma, CA Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.05.2025 relating to assessment year 2012-13.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Before me, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 30,98,000/- u/s. 69A made by treating cash depsoti in bank account as unexplained. It was further submitted that cash of RS. 4,29,000/- belong to Smt. Ishwari (appellant’s mother) and cash of Rs. 25,16,000/- belongs to Smt. Premvati related to various properties sold by original owner of the property i.e. Smt. Premvati. Ld. CIT(A) ignored the submission of assessee that he acted merely as a dealer / broker in property transactions and did not own the funds deposited in the bank account. It was also submitted that CIT(A) was not justified in not accepting the explanation and supporting affidavit that the cash deposit of Rs. 30,98,00/- belonged to third parties, primarily to Smt. Premvati (the appellant’s maternal acquaintance) and Smt. Ishwari (appellant’s mother) wsa temporarily held by the appellant at her request. It was also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the fact that the source of cash proceeds of properties owned by Smt. Premvati and that the funds were held by the appellant on her instructions in his capacity as a broker. I find that in the instant case AO has passed an exparte order u/s. 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also noted that CIT(A) has not considered the aforesaid plea of the assessee and passed a non-speaking order and affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding as under:- “5.2 Vide ground number 7-8 of this appeal, the appellant has raised objection towards the addition of entire cash deposits in his account of Rs. 30,98,000/-, stating that the out of the total cash deposits, cash amounting to Rs. 25,16,000/- belong to one Smt. Premvati, Rs. 2,14,500/- belonged to one Smt.Ishvati and Rs. 2,14,500/- to Smt. Premvati for agricutlurail sales etc. and only affidavits signed by these persons has been produced as proof. After careful perusal of the submissions and facts of the case, I am of the appellant’s contention that Smt. Premvati sold lands in pieces and gave cash to him and he deposited the same in his accounts, is not found to be acceptable. If such land transactions occurred then it should happen in the bank accounts of seller and purchasers. Also, no ITRs filed by Smt. Premvati declaring such land sales has been produced and no sale deeds or stamp duty paid receipts were produced during the appeal proceedings. Similarly, for remaining amount of Rs. 4,29,000/- received in lieu of agricultural activities by two different individuals cited supra also cannot be accepted as the proceeds so received should have been deposited directly to the beneficiary accounts. Hence, in view of the above facts, the addition made by the AO is sustained. Thus, these grounds of appeal
raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 2.1 In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the 2 | P a g e assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. I hold and direct accordingly. However, the assessee is directed through his Ld. AR to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings.