Case Law Details
Sukhdev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
As regards the contention of notice not properly served by the Assessing Officer, the explanation of the postal authorities is that the assessee has refused to take notice is a good service and hence ground Nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed. As regards ground Nos. 8 to 13, the CIT (Appeals) do have taken cognizance of the provision produced before him, if given a partial relief despite the details given by the assessee for the entire amount of Rs.36,90,000/-. From the perusal of the record presented before the CIT (A), it can be found that the explanation given by the assessee relating to sale of land for Rs.36,90,000/- was duly reflected in his bank account. The CIT (A)’s stand that no explanation was offered relating to the remaining cash deposit to the extent of Rs.26,20,000/- is not correct. The cash deposits were made according to the sale deed dated 22.07.2008 and the amount was received on 22.07.2008 and 24.01.2009 which was properly reflected in assessee’s bank account. Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) was not right in sustaining the remaining amount of cash deposit to the extent of Rs.26,20,000/-. Therefore, on merits the assessee succeeds and ground Nos. 8 to 13 are allowed. As regards to Ground No. 14, the same is consequential and hence not adjudicated upon. Therefore, ITA No. 7849/Del/2018 is partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
These two appeals are filed by the assessee against order dated 24.09.2018 passed by CIT (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, for assessment year 2009-10.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
