Sh. Devender vs Income Tax Officer

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), Bhubaneswar’s order dated 19.01.2026 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084926167(1), involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating its cash deposits of Rs.21,90,000/- as unexplained u/s 68 in the assessment order dated 21.12.2019. The learned CIT(A) thereafter deleted the addition of Rs.11,87,500/- and confirmed the remaining addition of Rs.10,02,500/-.

It is noticed that the assessee had sold his agricultural land admeasuring 2 acres, situated at village- Rawalwas Kalan, Tehsil-Balsamand Distt. Haryana, for a sale consideration of Rs.23,75,000/- as per sale deed dated 20.10.2011. There is hardly any dispute that the assessee had indeed deposited the impugned cash on various occasions between 04.04.2011 to 27.03.2012 in his saving bank account maintained with the State Bank of India. 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 in the lower appellate discussion.

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 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.2 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.8,02,500/- lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.