RAHUL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44(2) DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2528/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. 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 held that the assessee, being a salaried employee, could not be denied the possibility of having personal cash savings, especially during the demonetization period. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the Addl./JCIT(A) upholding an addition of Rs. 2,22,000/- made by the AO. This addition represented cash deposits during demonetization.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made by a salaried employee during demonetization can be added to income without considering the possibility of personal savings?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 10.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Rahul Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Roop Sadan, C-147A, Phase-3, Vikas Ward-44(2), Nagar, Near Rajdhani Public School, New Delhi-110002 Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DCSPK2727M Assessee by: Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Aurangabad’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073852856(1) dated 28.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Learned counsel vehemently submits at the outset that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in making section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.2,22,000/- representing cash deposits during demonetization, in the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Rahul Kumar 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee all along is a salaried employ working with M/s Mankind Pharma Ltd.; and, therefore, possibility of his families as well as his personal cash savings could not be altogether denied in such an instance. I therefore, see no merit in the impugned addition of Rs.2,22,000/- made by both the authorities which is hereby deleted in very terms.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →