JATIN,KARNAL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
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 held that the source of the loan amounting to Rs. 3,02,500 was fully explained by the cash flow statement, bank accounts, affidavits from the lenders, and the explanation that the loan was taken in cash and repaid in cash. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an agriculturist and salaried employee, deposited Rs. 3,02,500 during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding a loan taken. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 3,02,500 during the demonetization period, claimed as a loan, was sufficiently explained by the assessee to avoid being treated as unexplained income.
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 MAHAVIR SINGHITA
Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Aurangabad Delhi dated 2 8 .02.2025 pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. The solitary issue is relating to treatment of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 3,02,500/- during the demonetization period which was treated as unaccounted income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee. It is also noted that there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After perusing the application for condonation filed by the assessee, I am of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal, hence, the delay in dispute is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual agriculturist and also salaried employee. During the demonetization period the assessee has made a large value of cash deposited, hence, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the 1 | P a g e
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
