THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 926/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pawan Yadav Ward-3(1), 1718, Sector 31, Housing 2nd Floor, HSHDC Board Colony, Gurugram Building, Udyog Vihar, Haryana - 122001 Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 (cid:1)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AANPY6884F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. R.C. Yadav, AR Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr, (DR)

Date of Hearing 11.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2025

ORDER

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 21.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 arising out of the order dated 24.3.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) on the following grounds:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.

1,40,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A of the Act. In fact, the assessee has agreed in the order that he was in a possession of the cash amounting to Rs. 1,40,00,000/- for cash transaction related to immovable property but no documentary evidence regarding source of the cash was produced.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.

1,74,34,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has agreed to have been in possession of cash for transaction in immovable property.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.

25,10,000/- on account of unexplained investment by the assessee. The amount was available in bank account of assessee and no evidence was furnished by him to prove the source of this amount used for investment in immovable property.

4. Further the tax effect involved in this case at Rs.

1,18,98,756/- is above the monetary limit specified in CBDT instruction no. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 for filing further appeal to ITAT.

2. Brief facts of the matters are that the assessee had filed his return of income under Section 139 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 on 29.3.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 9,02,820/-. Information in this case of assessee was received from ADIT(Inv)-III, Gurugram that the assessee has made sale and purchase of property amounting to Rs. 3,59,44,000/- during the FY 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16. It was noted further by the AO that during the purchase of properties, the assessee had transacted worth of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in cash also. The same was perused and after analysis of the information received alongwith the information available in ITR filed by the assessee, a reason to believe was recorded regarding escapement of income. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.3.2021 with a reason to believe that the income for the AY 2015-16 has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the Act after recording reasons. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee furnished return of income on 5.8.2021. Notice under Section 142(1) dated 9.12.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee calling for certain details. Thereafter, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has filed return of income on 5.8.2021 and accordingly, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 17.12.2021 alongwith reason for reopening was issued to assessee. Again a notice under Section 142(1) dated 10.10.2022 was issued to the assessee to which the assessee failed to comply. Thereafter, the assessee filed objection to the issuance of notice under Section 148 on 12.01.2022 and the same was disposed of by the order dated 9.9.2022 by the AO. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.2.2022 was issued to the assessee calling for details. As