KAMAL MITTAL,NOIDA V. ITO,WARD-5(2)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

ITA 6129/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Kamal Mittal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition of Rs. 7,65,000 to the assessee's income. This addition was initially made by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee argued that these deposits were proceeds from the sale of agricultural land, a fact supported by documents such as the sale deed and legal heirs certificate, which were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and documents, concluded that the lower authorities had failed to apply their minds to the evidence provided, leading to the quashing of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 295068 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 6129/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6129/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kamal Mittal, 1367, Sector-37, Noida-201303. PAN- AAPPM 9475 L Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Gautambudh Nagar APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Abhishek Mathur, Adv. Department represented by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.04.2025 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NAC/S/250/2024-25/1070425836(1)], arising out of the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the AO, Ward 5(2)(1), Kanpur, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In the instant appeal the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 7,65,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act, on account of unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank accounts during demonetization period. 2 ITA No. 6129/Del/2024 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that during F.Y. 2015-16 the assessee sold her agricultural joint property and received Rs. 10,00,000/- being 1/3rd of the sale proceeds which was deposited by her in bank accounts. It is relevant to mention that the assessee along with her two sons, namely, Sanjay and Rittam, are the other two legal heirs of the property belonged to her deceased husband, who died on 16.02.2012. When the query was made by the Ld. AO, she could not place the fact along with documents but replied to this particular fact of receiving money to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- out of such sale of land. The Ld. AO in the absence of any corroborative evidence added the same in the hands of the assessee. 4. Before the First Appellate Authority the assessee duly submitted relevant set of documents in order to substantiate the source of cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization. However, it appears from the record that no endeavour has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this very aspect of the matter which was duly established by corroborative evidences including sale-deed, legal heirs certificate etc. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter the Ld. DR has not been able to justify the order passed by the authorities below. 5. I have heard rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly taking into consideration the documents so filed by the assessee in respect of cash deposits made by her during demonetization being the source of sale proceeds of agricultural land this Bench does not hesitate to hold that the addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority is nothing but conduct of non-application of mind, bad in law, arbitrary, erroneous and liable to be quashed. With the aforesaid observations the addition made by the Ld. AO is, thus, deleted. 3 ITA No. 6129/Del/2024 6. The assessee’s appeal is, therefore, allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 22.04.2025. Sd/- (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "