Ran Singh Dhanger, Charkhi Dadri V. ITO WARD , Charkhi Dadri

ITA 455/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4917 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A.No.455/Del/2020 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.स ं /.I.T.A No.455/Del/2020 /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ran Singh Dhanger Near Shiv High School, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. ब म Vs. ITO Ward, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. PAN No. ELLPS4053M अ Appellant /Respondent िनधा रतीक ओरसे /Assessee by None राज वक ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR स ु नवाईक तारीख/ Date of hearing: 07.03.2022 उ ोषणाक तारीख/Pronouncement on 08.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hisar dated 27.09.2019 for the AY 2011-12 in sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 9,03,200/- as unexplained income of the assessee. 2. In spite of issue of several notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Finally notice was issued through Speed Post with acknowledgement due posting the case for hearing on 07.03.2022 and the notice was duly served. However, in spite of service of notice, none I.T.A.No.455/Del/2020 2 appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved. Thus, this appeal is disposed off on hearing the Ld. DR on merits. 3. The Ld. DR submits that in this case assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act based on the information that the assessee made cash deposits in Haryana Grahmin Bank amounting to Rs. 28,58,000/- during the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2011-12. In the course of reassessment proceedings the assessee was required to explain the source of cash deposit and the assessee explained that he is an agriculturist and owns approximately 32 acres of land in Village Noswa and Bahu and in the FY 2010-11 he has deposited Rs. 28,58,000/- from the sale of agricultural proceeds. The Ld. DR submits that even though the assessee stated to have taken loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from one Shri Dhup Singh the Assessing Officer recorded the statement of Shri Dhup Singh, wherein he has stated that he has agricultural income of Rs. 1.5 to 2 lakhs during AY 2011-12 though his earning is hand to mouth and he is not in a position to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- to the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee failed to produce/furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 22,58,000/- being the cash deposit and also the loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- as an unexplained income of the assessee. 4. On appeal the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) also restricted the addition to Rs. I.T.A.No.455/Del/2020 3 9,03,200/- in so far as the cash deposits which were considered as unexplained by the Assessing Officer observing as under: “ii) The AO has also made addition of Rs. 22,58,000/- being cash deposit in the bank account maintained with HGB, Charkhi Dadri. The appellant submitted that he was doing agricultural activities on the land owned by self, Shri Baljit Singh, Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sh. Ramphal and Raj Singh who are his cousin brothers. The assessee submitted copy of Fard/Jamband and also Byan Halfiya to substantiate the claim. The AO however did not believe these documents and made addition of Rs. 22,58,000/-. From the written submission made by the appellant it is noticed that the total land owned by the family members are aprox 32 acres in village Noswa and Village Bahu. The affidavits of the above cousins were submitted wherein they have stated they theirs is a joint family and agricultural activities was carried out by Sh. Ran Singh on their behalf. The submission made by the appellant has been considered and is partly accepted. Therefore, an amount of 40% i.e. Rs. 9,03,200/- out of the total cash deposited is treated to be from unexplained sources and the balance of Rs. 13,54,800/- is accepted to be from agricultural income of the appellant and his family members. Therefore, the appellant gets relief of Rs. 18,04,800/- (Rs. 4,50,000 + 13,54,800) accordingly. The addition of Rs. 9,03,200/- is confirmed. The ground of the assessee is partly allowed.” 5. As could be seen from the above the Ld. CIT(A) considering the affidavits filed by the assessee and his cousin brothers treated 40% of cash deposits are from unexplained sources and deleted the balance 60%. I find no basis for treating 40% of cash deposits as unexplained. It is only an ad hoc estimate by the Ld. CIT(A) adopted in treating the cash deposits partly as unexplained and partly as explained. Having accepted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that the land to the extent of 32 acres approximately is owned by the joint family members of the assessee and having accepted that they are carrying out the agricultural operations in that land, I do not see any reason to make ad hoc estimation of unexplained cash deposits by the assessee into his bank account as I.T.A.No.455/Del/2020 4 unexplained. Thus, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 9,03,200/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as unexplained cash deposit and compute the income of the assessee accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/04/2022 Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 08.04.2022 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT: Delhi Benches-Delhi