Sh. Braham Pal vs Assessing Officer

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, 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/250/2025-26/1075824375(1), dated 25.04.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

We notice at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance herein is directed against both the assessment discussion dated 03.03.2023 as well as the CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate findings treating the entire cash deposits of Rs.58.84 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A of the Act.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. There is hardly any dispute that the assessee had indeed deposited the impugned cash on various occasions between 04.06.2014 to 24.12.2014 in his saving bank account maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Ganouli, Loni, Ghaziabad. He has further claimed the same as representing sale consideration in lieu of transfer of his agricultural lands executed in the relevant previous year which has nowhere been disputed even in para 6.1 page 7 of the lower appellate discussion. What all the learned CIT(A)/NFAC holds therein is that he had failed to submit a copy of the corresponding agreement as well as proof of ancestral inheritance to the very effect.

We are of the considered view that such a hyper-technical approach could not be concurred with once the assessee has placed record a copy of the registered sale deed itself in both the lower proceedings. Faced with this situation, the Revenue seeks to buttress the point that it was the assessee’s onus all along to plead and prove the necessary reconciliation and verification of the impugned cash deposits vis-à-vis his sale consideration pertaining to the transfer of all agricultural lands. We find only a part merit in the Revenue’s stand to this effect. We wish to make it clear that going by Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele Vs. Third Income-Tax Officer on [1994] 49 ITD 43 (TM) (MUM), the necessary inference which would arise in the assessee’s favour is that given the fact that he had sold/transferred his ancestral agricultural lands, possibility of his cash deposits representing the actual sale price over and above that adopted by the registration authority(ies) could not be altogether denied although he could not prove all the facts to the entire satisfaction of both the lower authorities. We thus deem it appropriate in this peculiar factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.3 lakhs only 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.56.84 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.