RAGHUBIR SINGH through wife Mewa Devi, Panipat V. ITO, WARD- 5, PANIPAT

ITA 6154/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1243 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 6154/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year 2011-12 Raghubir Singh through wife Mewa Devi VPO Sondhapur, Panipat, Haryana Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panipat (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BGFPR6239C Assessee by : Sh. K. C. Aneja, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Girish Kohli, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 12.07.2018. 2. The case of Sh. Raghubir Singh has been assessed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the information pertaining to cash deposits as per the AIR Report. The AO held that the assessee could not satisfactorily furnished any explanation with regard to the cash deposits of Rs.57 lacs and treated the same u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) through his wife/ legal heir owing to the death of the assessee due to cancer. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessee on the grounds that the advanced monies received in ITA No. 6154/Del/2018 Raghubir Singh 2 May 2007 could not have been deposited in October 2010. The assessee before us, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of fact that the assessee is 1/5th shareholder of the property and the land was transferred in 2010. It was also argued that a part parcel of the land was also sold in the year 2012 and partial sale of land took place in 2010. It was argued that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the issue holistically with regard to the entire sale of land and the facts could not brought before the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee was ill and ultimately expired during the pendency of the proceedings. 4. Having gone through the facts on record, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the issue afresh after affording an opportunity to the assessee and taking into consideration all the registered agreements and documents filed by the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/10/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11/10/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR