Ballu Rathi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl/JCIT(A)-1 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Pune’s order dated 08.12.2025 passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083383126(1), involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings inter alia assessing him for undisclosed Long term capital gains amounting to Rs. 13,62,361/- as well as the alleged unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7,36,563/- in his hands. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue’s vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned twin additions. The assessee had admittedly sold the land in question situated at the Revenue Estate of Village Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana, along with his three brothers for Rs. 70,53,750/-which has been treated as a capital asset in both the lower proceedings without even remotely indicating that the same qualifies the relevant statutory condition(s) u/s 2(14) of the Act. I, therefore, see no merit in the impugned long 2 | P a g e term capital gains made in the assessee’s hands to the tune of Rs. 13,62,361/- which is hereby deleted in very terms therefore.

The outcome of the above cash deposits addition amounting to Rs. 7,36,536/- would be hardly any difference. I hereby quote Rele Smt. Malini Ramnath vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (Third Member) that the necessary inference made in such case would arise in the assessee’s favour is that these cash deposits represent the alleged on-money component in the case of agricultural land. Deleted in very terms therefore.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.