Nirmal Singh, Panipat V. ITO WARD - 3, Panipat

ITA 9673/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1086 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9673/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Nirmal Singh, VPO Adiyana, Tehsil Madluada, Panipat Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panipat PAN :CECPS4427P (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 04.11.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of Rs.8,36,599/- sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. During the year under consideration, the assessee did not file any return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Appellant by Sh. K.C. Aneja, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 12.10.2022 ITA No.9673/Del/2019 AY: 2009-10 2 | Page Assessing Officer received information that in the relevant financial year, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.10 lakhs in his savings bank account held with Central Bank of India, Panipat. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee neither complied with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, nor under section 142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte, to the best of his judgment, by invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act. 4. While doing so, he added back the amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the income of the assessee. The assessee contested the addition by filling an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Being partly convinced with the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the addition to Rs.8,36,599/-. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Admittedly, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not appear and furnish any evidence to explain source of cash deposit. However, before the first appellate authority, the assessee appeared and furnished certain evidences to explain the source of cash deposits. It is the say of the assessee ITA No.9673/Del/2019 AY: 2009-10 3 | Page that he along with his brother and father had agricultural land holding of about 10 acres and earning agricultural income from three agriculture produce. In support of such contention, he had submitted certain evidences, including Form J before the first appellate authority. It is also evident, the assessee furnished certificate in support of his claim that annual agricultural income was to the tune of Rs.2.5 lakhs. However, assesssee’s explanation for the source of cash deposit was not accepted on the ground that J Form was for a sum of Rs.1,63,401/- only. 6. Having perused the materials placed before me, I find that the assessee had furnished various documentary evidences before the departmental authorities not only to show the agricultural land holding but earning of agricultural income. It is a fact that the claim of the assessee has not been disbelieved in its entirety. In fact, both the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) have partly accepted assessee’s claim. Only due to non- availability of J Form in case of all transactions relating to sale of agricultural produce, only part relief has been granted to the extent of Rs.1,63,401/-. When the assessee has furnished various corroborative evidences to demonstrate that he had earned reasonable agricultural income from past years, his claim should ITA No.9673/Del/2019 AY: 2009-10 4 | Page not have been rejected merely because he could furnish only one J Form. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to delete the addition sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th October, 2022 Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12 th October, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi