GAGAN CHHABRA,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-72(1), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a portion of the cash deposit was from the assessee's wife's business income and another portion was from earlier withdrawals. However, the claim regarding past savings was not believable.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 7,41,000 in bank accounts. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 6,91,000 to the assessee's income under Section 69A, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
What were the issues?
Whether the explanation for the source of cash deposits in bank accounts is satisfactory and whether the addition made under Section 69A is justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 23.03.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of Rs.6,91,000 under Section 69A of the Income-Tax Act,1961.
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 30.07.2017 declaring income of Rs.35,87,750. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.7,41,000 in different bank accounts. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. Though, the assessee furnished some explanation explaining the source of cash deposits, however, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. Therefore, he added back Rs.6,91,000 to the income of the assessee by applying section 69A of the Act. The addition made was confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals).
Before me, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the bank account was jointly held by the assessee with his wife and cash deposit of Rs.2,48,000 was made by his wife from her income from petty business. He submitted, the balance amount was out of the past savings. In support, he drew my attention to the Income-tax return filed by the assessee’s wife, bank statement etc. He also relied upon certain case laws.
Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals).
I have considered rival submission and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the facts and material on record, the bank account was held jointly by the assessee with his wife. It is the case of the assessee that an amount of Rs.2,48,000 was deposited by his wife. Further, an amount of Rs.2,28,800 is out of withdrawals from 04.04.2016 to 07.11.2016 and balance amount were out of withdrawals made earlier.
Having perused the material on record, I am of the view that assessee’s claim that amount of Rs.2,48,000 was deposited by his wife is believable considering the fact that assessee’s wife has filed the ITR offering income. Further, the assessee had benefit of withdrawals of Rs.2,28,800 from 04.04.2016 to 07.11.2016. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted this fact. However, he has not given benefit of such withdrawals on the reasoning that such withdrawals might have been used for personal use. In my view, when there is nothing on record to suggest that the amount of Rs.2,28,800 was utilized for some other purpose, benefit of doubt has to be to the assessee. Thus, the assessee gets further relief of Rs.2,28,800.
As regards the balance amount, assessee’s claim that it was from withdrawals made in earlier years is not believable. As, it is highly improbably that after withdrawal of money from the bank account, the assessee was keeping it in cash form for such a long duration. Thus, out of the addition made of Rs.6,91,000, assessee gets relief for an amount of Rs.4,76,800 and addition to the extent of Rs.2,14,000 is sustained.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026