Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Deletes ₹54 Lakh Cash Addition; Accepts Property Dealer’s Intermediary Explanation

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 11468
Case Name
Anil Rathee Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2012-13
Advertisement

Anil Rathee Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

The appeal filed by the Assessee was against order dated 20.03.2026 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of assessment order dated 16.12.2019 of Ld. Assessing Officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Room No. 5, Rohtak for Assessment Year 2012-13. As per AIR/CBI information, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 54,00,500/- during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. Since the assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1), a verification letter dated 13.02.2019 was issued to explain the source of the cash deposit, but remained un-complied. Proceedings u/s 147 were initiated and notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2019 was issued, followed by various notices u/s 142(1) and u/s 143(2). The assessee did not file reply or information, and the AO made addition of Rs. 54,00,500/-. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that he was a property dealer acting as an intermediary for Sh. Zile Singh and his family members, collecting cash from prospective property buyers, depositing it into his personal bank account and subsequently transferring the amounts to the seller to facilitate registration of various sale deeds. The assessee relied upon bank statements, three affidavits from sellers, eight sale deeds executed by the Zile Singh family and seven additional affidavits from property buyers confirming handing over of cash consideration for transfer to sellers. The Tribunal examined the record and found that the assessee, acting as an intermediary, had received cash from property buyers, deposited it in his bank account and subsequently transferred the same amounts to the seller of property, supported by affidavits of sellers and buyers. It held that passing of the impugned orders was not just fair and reasonable and set aside the order dated 16.12.2019 of the AO and order dated 20.03.2026 of the CIT(A). The grounds of appeal were accepted and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Cases Discussed

  • Shri Balwant Rai Wadhwa Vs. ITO, I.T.A. No. 4806/Del/10.
  • ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon: (2010) 321 ITR 362(SC).
  • S. Venkat Reddy, Hydrabad vs. ITO [TS-6716-ITAT-2016(HYDERABAD)-O].
  • ITO Vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra, ITA No. 398/LKW/2012.
  • Shri Inderjeet, Sohna Gurgaon, ITAT Delhi, Dt. 3.12.2018.
  • Dy CIT, Range 2, Lucknow Vs. Pawan Aggarwal, ITA No. 374/LKW/2013 A.Yr. 2009-10.
  • ITO Vs. Deepali Sehgal.
  • Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Vs. CIT, 193 ITR 669.
  • Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali Vs ITO, Ward 1, Haldwani Appeal No. 3814(Delhi) of 2011.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 21,304

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.