SHANKAR SINGH,KHARKHURA V. ITO WARD 3(2) GAYA, R.J.PALACE

ITA 604/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shankar Singh, an 80-year-old agriculturist, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs.10,75,000 as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee argued that the cash deposits were from the sale of his agricultural land and past savings, which he was compelled to deposit due to the demonetization scheme. The Income Tax Officer had made the addition, which was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation satisfactory and allowed the appeal, deleting the additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32403 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2025
• 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
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 604/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shankar Singh ………….. Appellant Kharkhura, PS Delha, District Gaya, Bihar-823002. (PAN: GTVPS3568H) Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gaya .............. Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by: Shri Jitendra Kr. Sinha, Advocate Respondent represented by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 13.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 13.02.2025 ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.07.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.10,75,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during demonetization period. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to copies of two registered sale deeds dated 24.05.2016 and 09.07.2016. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that vide sale deed dated 24.05.2016, the assessee had sold his agricultural land for Rs.3,36,000/-. Further, vide sale deed dated 09.07.2016, the assessee had received a sum of Rs.6,26,000/- for sale of his agricultural land. The Ld. Counsel for the I.T.A. No.: 604/PAT/2024 Shankar Singh, AY : 2017-18 Page 2 of 3 assessee has submitted that though the amount of Rs.3,36,000/- was received through banking channel, however, the amount of Rs.6,26,000/- was received in cash as mentioned in sale deed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee is 80 years old agriculturist and did not do financial transactions through banks etc. That he used to keep his cash at his home. However, due to demonetization scheme declared by the Government, the assessee was forced to deposit his cash in the bank account and, therefore, he opened his bank account in the month of November, 2016 and deposited the entire cash lying with him in the bank account including the aforesaid amount received from sale of agricultural land and also a meagre amount of Rs. 1 lac lying with him out of his past savings. 4. The Ld. DR, however, submitted that there is a time gap between the receipt of the amount from sale of land and the deposit of the amount in the bank account. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. In my view, the assessee has duly explained the source of the deposit in the bank account. It has also been explained that the assessee is a rural, 80 years old, agriculturist and was not having any bank account. Under the circumstances, I am convinced that the assessee has duly explained the source of deposit, therefore, the additions made by the lower authorities in this case are unjustified and the same are accordingly ordered to be deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 13.02.2025 J.Dey (Sr. P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 604/PAT/2024 Shankar Singh, AY : 2017-18 Page 3 of 3 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant : Shri Shankar Singh 2. Respondent : ITO, Ward-3(2), Gaya 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Patna Bench, Patna. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Patna Benches "