MAHENDER KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 9

PDF · subscribers
ITA 375/HYD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 October 2021AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that cash accumulation could not be ruled out but noted the lack of evidence for prior returns. Consequently, the addition was restricted to Rs. 1,00,000 without setting a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed that cash in hand accumulated over time and was deposited during demonetization. The lower authorities made an addition of Rs. 2,50,000 as unexplained money, granting partial relief.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A was justified, considering the assessee's claim of cash accumulation and the lack of supporting evidence for prior returns.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Appellant: Smt. Shilpa Maniyar

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2017-18 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’s order dt.16.03.2021 passed in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020-21/1031533593(1) in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making 69A unexplained money addition of Rs.2,50,000, it is noticed at the outset that his stand adopted throughout had attributed to / source thereof to cash in hand getting accumulated all along and deposited during the demonetization period to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs.

3.

Learned department representative vehemently contended that both the lower authorities have already granted the assessee part relief to the tune of Rs.2.5 lakhs thereby adding the balance amount in issue. The fact also remains that the impugned cash having accumulated in assessee's hands throughout to this effect cannot be per se ruled out. It is further not an issue that he has although claims to have been filing returns in preceding assessment years on regular basis, no such evidence has been placed on record with all the corresponding details.

4.

Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned addition to the extent of one lakh only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →