Gyan Prakash Mishra vs Income Tax Officer

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No.1160 & 4095/Del/2026 for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074635208(1), dated 18.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Delay of 318 days in filing of the assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.4095/Del/2026 is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, I notice that it seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits of Rs.13,18,000/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 21.11.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. I wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute all along that the assessee is a retired employee engaged in agricultural land cultivation of 21 acres in Distt. Kasganj, UP and has admitted an agricultural income of Rs.23,16,080/- in his return of income. The assessee’s case is that the source of the cash deposits was agricultural income and sale of agricultural products. And that he had filed all the relevant details of agricultural income, whom credits could not be denied in entirety, although he appears to have not successfully discharged his onus of pleading and proving his explanation to the very effect. Be that as it may, I deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1.5 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.11,68,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

There is yet another clinching decisive factor noticed during the course of hearing that the assessee latter appeal herein ITA No.4095/Del/2026 appears to be a “duplicate” file. Dismissed accordingly.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

The assessee’s former appeal ITA No.1160/Del/2026 is partly allowed and the latter appeal ITA No.4095/Del/2026 is dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.