IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH : SMC-II, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3315/DEL/2015 Assessment year : 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Hari Ram, Ward 1, S/o. Mata Din, Moh. Khaliawas, Rewari. VPO Dharuhera. Rewari. Haryana. PAN: AALPR 5248Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 15.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016 ORDER This appeal is preferred by revenue against order dated 26.03.2015 of CIT(A), Rohtak inter alia on following grounds:- On facts and in circumstances of case ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.45,05,000 made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposit, as ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated facts explained in assessment order passed by A.O. that assessee failed to file any cogent evidence in support of source of cash deposited in his bank as assessee has not produced original agreement neither during assessment proceedings before A.O. nor during appellate proceedings. ITA No.3315/DEL/2015 Page 2 of 4 2. This appeal was taken up for consideration on 15.09.2016, but none appeared on behalf of assessee, despite having knowledge about date of hearing of appeal. Since hearing was adjourned on last occasion at request of assessee and none appeared on behalf of assessee on fixed date, I have no option but to hear appeal ex parte. Accordingly ld. DR was heard. 3. controversy involved in this appeal is with regard to addition of Rs.45,05,000 made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account. 4. facts in brief are that on basis of AIR information Assessing Officer noted that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.49,55,000 in Savings Bank A/c No. 01190001334 with SBI, Dharuhera and issued notice u/s. 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [ Act ] having invoked provisions of section 147 of Act. 5. In order to explain source of deposits, ld. Counsel for assessee has stated that from total cash deposits, sum of Rs.45 lakhs was deposited in bank on 10.03.2007, out of token money received from Lt. Surender Singh, S/o. Shri Manohar Singh vide agreement dated 5.3.2007. Since assessee could not produce Lt. Surender Singh with whom he has executed agreement to sell, though copy of agreement was placed on record, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.45,05,000 as unexplained deposit in bank. ITA No.3315/DEL/2015 Page 3 of 4 6. assessee preferred appeal before CIT(Appeals) with submission that assessee has executed agreement of sale of property on 5.3.2007 for total price of Rs.3,40,00,000, out of which he had received Rs.50,00,000 as earnest money, after execution of sale agreement. sale agreement was witnessed by Shri Dharamveer Singh and Lt. Shamsher Singh. Since assessee has duly discharged his onus by producing witnesses before Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer should have accepted claim of assessee. It was also further contended that purchaser Lt. Surinder Singh could not be produced before AO as he had expired on 21.04.2008, but one of survivor witness Shri Dharamveer Singh was produced before Assessing Officer during remand proceedings. sole witness had admitted execution of sale agreement and advance received by assessee. Since deal could not be materialised, entire money was refunded to Lt. Surinder Kumar. 7. CIT(Appeals) re-examined claim of assessee and being convinced with explanation, he deleted addition. 8. Now revenue is in appeal before Tribunal and placed reliance upon order of Assessing Officer. 9. Having carefully examined orders of authorities below and documents placed on record, I find that assessee has successfully proved source of deposit in bank by placing relevant evidence ITA No.3315/DEL/2015 Page 4 of 4 on record. But purchaser of property could not be produced as he was not alive, whereas other witness was produced for examination. During course of his examination, he admitted factum of advance given to assessee on account of sale transaction. Since relevant evidence was placed on record and in view of that, I am of view that no addition on account of unexplained source of deposits can be made. I accordingly find myself in agreement with order of CIT(Appeals) and I confirm same. 10. In result, appeal by revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in open court on this 21st day of September 2016. Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) Judicial Member New Delhi, Dated, 21st September, 2016. /D S/ Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, New Delhi. Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Rewari v. Hari Ram