PURAN SHARMA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had omitted certain cash withdrawals from the bank statement. Including these omitted withdrawals would eliminate the discrepancy, rendering the addition unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 50,40,000 in cash into his bank account. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and added Rs. 15,23,438 as income from undisclosed sources, finding a discrepancy between deposits, withdrawals, and investments.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 69 on account of cash deposits in the bank was justified, considering the assessee's explanation of withdrawals and sale of property.
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 31.08.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of Rs.15,23,438 under Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961.
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. Based on information received indicating that in the year under consideration, the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.50,40,000 in his savings bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act.
In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit.
In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that the cash deposits were out of withdrawals from bank and receipts from sale of property. After perusing the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had cash withdrawals from bank for an amount of Rs.62,55,000 and receipts from sale of property of Rs.11,61,562, both, aggregating to Rs.74,16,562. Whereas, he observed, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.50,40,000 in the bank account and made investment of Rs.36,00,000 in purchase of property, both, aggregating to Rs.86,40,000. Further, he observed, out of the cash withdrawal, the assessee must have expended some amount towards household expenses and investment. Accordingly, he treated an amount of Rs.15,23,438 as income from undisclosed sources and added back under Section 69 of the Act. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was unsuccessful.
Before me, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted, the actual cash withdrawal made by the assessee were to the tune of Rs.78,35,000 and not Rs.62,55,000 as considered by the Assessing Officer. He submitted, withdrawals of Rs.8,00,000 and Rs.7,80,000 made on 10.08.2011 and 24.08.2011, respectively, have been omitted by the Assessing Officer.
In this context, he drew my attention to the statement of withdrawals and deposits in the bank account.
Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals).
I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
From the statement of deposit and withdrawals in the bank account, it is noticed that the total withdrawals made by the assessee during the year was to the tune of Rs.78,35,000. From the list of cash withdrawals mentioned in the assessment order, it is observed, the Assessing Officer has omitted the cash withdrawals made on 10.08.2011 and 24.08.2011 aggregating to Rs.15,80,000. In case, the aforesaid two cash withdrawals are considered, the difference between deposits in the bank account and investment made in new property and availability of cash with the assessee would not be there. Therefore, in my view, the addition of Rs.15,23,438 would not survive.
Accordingly, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th February, 2023.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026