PRAHLAD SINGH YADAV,NOIDA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4355/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 August 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 22 lakhs in cash during the financial year, and the deposit of Rs. 14.28 lakhs was a part of these withdrawals. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arose from an order upholding an addition of Rs. 14.28 lakhs treated as unexplained. The lower authorities' discussion treated the deposit as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in an assessment year, which are part of larger cash withdrawals made during the same year, can be treated as unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Aman singh, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.08.2025Pronounced: 20.08.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal 2012-13 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 18.06.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1077168749(1), in proceedings u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that learned lower authorities’ discussion have treated the assessee’s deposit in question of Rs. 14.28 lakhs as unexplained, in assessment order dated 09.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate order dated 16.06.2025.

3.

It is in this backdrop that the tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of the case record that the assessee had in fact withdrawn total cash amounting to Rs. 22 lakhs in the relevant financial year that was partially followed by deposit thereof to the tune of Rs. 14.28 lakhs i.e. forming subject matter of addition. The necessary inference in the given facts which would arise is that the assessee’s above cash deposit forms part of his preceding withdrawals, and, therefore, the impugned addition made by both the lower authorities could not be sustained. Deleted accordingly.

Order pronounced in open court on 20.08.2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →