PAWAN SINGH,HARYANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROHTAK HARYANA

ITA 2935/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pawan Singh, the legal heir of Late Shri Dilbagh Singh, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 9,57,000 as unexplained income due to cash deposits totaling Rs. 17,22,000 during November 2016, which the assessee claimed were advances for land purchase. The AO and CIT(A) rejected the explanation as the assessee failed to verify the source of the remaining amount after accounting for certain withdrawals. The Tribunal, however, acknowledged part of the assessee's claim, reducing the addition by Rs. 7,40,000, which was substantiated by the sale proceeds of land.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471522 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PUPINDER SINGH
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 2935/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2017-18 PAWAN SINGH, (Legal Heir of Late Shri Dilbagh Singh), H.NO. 389, VPO, BHAINSRU KHURD, SAMPLA, ROHTAK, HARYANA-124501 (PAN: FIAPS3579H) VS. ITO, WARD-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, ROHTAK, HARYANA-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. Pupinder Singh, CA Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 26.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 02.04.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 22.01.2024, relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 1722000/- i.e. on 08.11.2016, Rs. 1650000/- and Rs. 72000/- on 09.11.2016. The assessee has contended that the amount was received back which was given as advance for purchase of land. The contention of the assessee has been considered carefully, but the assessee could not produce both the persons (purposed sellers) and the facts remained unverified. From the perusal of bank statements, it is noticed that the assessee has withdrawn the following amounts: Cash withdrawals HGB, Sampla PNB, Sampla SBI Sampla 12.07.2016 500000 05.07.2016 5000 16.03.2016 105000 06.09.2016 25000 08.04.2016 15000 2 | P a g e 10.05.2016 15000 16.06.2016 15000 11.07.2016 20000 06.09.2016 50000 13.10.2016 15000 Total 525000 Total 5000 Total 235000 2.1 From the above table, it is clear that the assessee has made withdrawal of Rs. 765000/- (525000+5000+235000). The genuineness of the sources of remaining amount i.e. 957000.00 (1722000-765000) could not be proved by assessee. Therefore, AO noted that the amount of Rs. 9,57,000/- was considered as unexplained income of the assessee for which the assessee could not furnish any plausible explanation. Therefore, the same was taxed in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Act w.r.t. the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Against the aforesaid action of the AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition. 4. Against the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Before me, the assessee’s AR contention is that assessee has sold property and has received Rs. 17,22,000/- (Rs. 16,50,000/- + Rs. 72,000/-) out of it. In this regard, copy of sale deed and bank statement has been placed on record, in which the amount was deposited and thereafter withdrawals were made which were duly reflected in the statement of account. It is clear that Rs. 7,40,000/- was deposited out of the sale proceeds on sale of land, hence, the same deserve to be reduced from the addition of Rs. 9,57,000/-, for which both the parties fairly agreed. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix, I direct the AO to reduce the addition of Rs.7,40,000/- from 3 | P a g e the total addition of Rs. 9,57,000/-, and balance addition of Rs. 2,17,000/- is confirmed. I hold and direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 02/04/2025. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "