2025 (12) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....concerns the addition of Rs. 13,00,500 under section 69A representing cash deposits in the ICICI Bank account, which according to the assessee stood sourced entirely from the sale proceeds of an immovable property. 2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, indicate that information reflected in the AIMS module of ITBA suggested that the assessee had sold an immovable property during the year for a consideration of Rs. 94,06,000 and had deposited cash of Rs. 13,00,500 in her ICICI Bank account. Since no return of income had been filed under section 139, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reopen the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 on 28 April 2022 after following the procedure prescribed under section 148A. 3. In response,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... treated as unexplained under section 69A. The assessee explained in unequivocal terms that out of the total consideration of Rs. 61,00,000 received during the year from the purchaser, an amount of Rs. 38,15,000 was received in cash and this very cash was deposited into the ICICI Bank account. The sale deed itself contains a clear recital acknowledging these cash receipts. The receipt annexed to the sale deed also sets out the precise amounts paid by the purchaser. 6. The Assessing Officer rejected this explanation solely on the ground that the return filed in response to section 148 was invalid and therefore he was not obliged to examine the source of the deposits. The Commissioner Appeals, instead of appreciating the factual foundation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sought to impeach. 10. The non acceptance of the assessee's return on account of a system generated technicality cannot eclipse the fundamental obligation of the Assessing Officer to examine the source of funds when tangible evidence is placed before him. Information obtained through automated modules such as AIMS may trigger enquiry but cannot override or supplant primary documentary evidence emanating from the registered instrument of transfer itself. The authorities below have thus erred in proceeding on peripheral considerations rather than adjudicating the factual merits. 11. In these circumstances, the addition of Rs. 13,00,500 under section 69A is wholly unsustainable. There is no material on record to suggest that the assesse....