JATIN,KARNAL V. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 3853/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Jatin Vilage Choura Khalsa against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A), Aurangabad, which pertained to the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the treatment of a cash deposit of Rs. 3,02,500 made during the demonetization period, which was considered unaccounted income from undisclosed sources by the tax authorities. The assessee, an agriculturist and salaried employee, argued that the deposit was from agricultural income, salary, and loans. The Tribunal, after reviewing the detailed cash flow statement, bank accounts, and affidavits provided by the assessee, concluded that the source of the deposit was adequately explained and thus, the addition to the income was unjustified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716829 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANGEET BANSAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Salary income; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

"1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 3853/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2017-18 JATIN VILAGE CHOURA KHALSA, DABKAULI KALAN KARNAL, HARYANA VS. ADDL. /CIT(A) AURANGABAD (PAN: AXDPJ5734E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Aurangabad Delhi dated 2 8 .02.2025 pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. The solitary issue is relating to treatment of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 3,02,500/- during the demonetization period which was treated as unaccounted income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee. It is also noted that there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After perusing the application for condonation filed by the assessee, I am of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal, hence, the delay in dispute is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual agriculturist and also salaried employee. During the demonetization period the assessee has made a large value of cash deposited, hence, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e course of assessment the assessee the source of said cash deposits are out of agricultural income, salary income and loan taken from persons. The assessee failed to submit satisfactory evidence with respect to the loan received amounting to Rs. 3,02,500/-. Hence, the same was added in the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Against the above, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records, I note that before the AO assessee submitted a detailed cash flow statement alongwith copy of bank accounts including receipt of money as advance against agricultural produce from four persons who are also agriculturist and resided in the same village having no savings account with the bank, as a result the loan was taken in cash for a short span. However, the said loan was returned to them in cash out of the sale proceeds of wheat in April, 2017. The assesse also produced affidavit from these persons. It was the contention of the assessee that cash deposit was recorded in the books of accounts and cash deposit source was also explained before both the lower authorities. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that source of loan Rs. 3,02,500/- has been fully explained, thus the addition made in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is deserved to be deleted. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of Rs. 3,02,500/-. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.08.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT Date: 20.08.2025 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "