ANAND SINGH,VILLAGE SHAHPUR TURK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 69(5), DELHI

ITA 1022/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anand Singh, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which sustained an addition of Rs. 7,50,000 to his income for the assessment year 2012-13, claiming it as undisclosed income. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the suspicion that the sources of cash deposits in Singh's bank account were not adequately explained. The CIT(A) had deleted an earlier addition of Rs. 6,44,000 but sustained the addition of Rs. 7,50,000 due to lack of documentary evidence supporting the source of this amount. The Tribunal, after reviewing the agreement to sell submitted by Singh, found the explanation satisfactory and allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31666 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAT SHARMA
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 1022/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2012-13 ANAND SINGH, VILLAGE SHAHPUR TURK, DISTRICT SONIPAT, SONIPAT, HARYANA-131001 (PAN: DYDPS7748D) VS. ITO 69(5), DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.01.2024, relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:- “1. That the AO has erred in law and on fact both for proceeded one the fallacious assumption that bank deposits constitute undisclosed income and overlooked the fact that the source of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. It is prayed assessment order may kindly be quashed. 2. That the AO has erred in law and on facts both in making high pitched addition of Rs. 1394000/- without considering the submissions with evidences regarding source of deposits in the bank.” 2 | P a g e 2. The brief facts of the case are that from AIR information it revealed that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 30,19,000/- in his saving bank account. During the assessment proceedings, AO was not satisfied about the source of cash deposit being sale commodity of Rs. 6,44,000/- and sale of plot amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/-, hence, he made the addition of Rs. 13,94,000/-. 3. In appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), assesse has submitted as under:- “4.2 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant state and submit that out of the above addition of Rs. 13,94,000/-, Rs. 6,44,000/- was received from his brother. In this regard the appellant submitted an affidavit of his brother namely Suresh duly notorized and signed. The appellant also states that the source of such cash gift in the hands of his brother is out of agriculture income on account of farming of wheat, paddy and vegetables. 4.3 With regard to addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- the appellant state that he received such cash out of sale of property. In this regard the appellant submitted detailed submission which has been duly carefully perused and on record.” 3.1 Considering the aforesaid, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 6,44,000/- and sustained the addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- by holding as under:- “4.4 I have carefully gone through the above submission of the appellant. In respect of addition of Rs. 6,44,000/-, the appellant provided an affidavit of his brother for gifted such amount out of his agricultural income. Since, the amount of cash gift received from his brother is duly covered u/s. 56(2)(vii), hence, in my considered opinion, addition of Rs. 6,44,000/- is not justified and hereby deleted in appeal. 4.5 In respect of addition of Rs. 7,50,000/-, the appellant stated that he had received such amount out of sale proceed of property. 3 | P a g e However, he has failed to submit either any documentary evidences in support of his argument or has failed to file any registered sale deed. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the addition made by the AO of this amount is justified and hereby sustained in appeal.” 4. Against the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before me. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee produced the agreement to sell of Rs. 7,50,000/-. He submitted that the sale of said land was in Lal Dora land, hence, the same could not be registered. However, despite the submission of agreement to sell the source of Rs. 7,50,000/- has been disbelieved by the Ld. CIT(A). He prayed that since facts are quite clear, thus the addition in dispute may be deleted. Ld. DR could not controvert the submission of the Ld. AR. Upon careful consideration, I find that the source of Rs. 7,50,000/- was duly explained vide the agreement to sell, hence, the addition in dispute is directed to be deleted. I hold and direct accordingly and thus allow the grounds raised by the assessee, 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20/02/2025. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "