ANIL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 36(2), NEW DELHI
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 Rs. 1,41,000 was paid by cheque, thus explaining its source. For the remaining cash deposits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim that it was out of his available cash in hand, supported by a cash flow statement.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 5,00,000 to the assessee's income under Section 68, alleging unexplained cash deposits in a bank and payments to a securities company. The assessee claimed the deposits were out of his cash in hand from business and household expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee could sufficiently explain the source of cash deposits and payments made to a securities company under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act.
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
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 17.01.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi for the assessment year 2008-09.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of an amount of Rs.5,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act,1961.
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 29.07.2008 declaring income of Rs.84,060.
As observed by the assessing officer, assessee derives income from truck hire business for transporting fruits and is also engaged in trading of shares.
In course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer while making random inquiry through notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 found that in the year under consideration, assessee had paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000 to M/s.
Indiabulls Securities Ltd. Further, he found that the assessee deposited cash aggregating to Rs.3,00,000 in Standard Chartered Bank. Alleging that the assessee could not explain the source of deposits in Indiabulls Securities Ltd. and Standard Chartered Bank, the assessing officer added back the amount of Rs.5,00,000 to the income of the assessee.
Assessee contested the addition before the first appellate authority and thereafter before the Tribunal.
While deciding assessee’s appeal, the Tribunal in order dated 07.07.2015 passed in being of the view that the assessing officer has completed the assessment in a hurried manner without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the deposits with Indiabulls Securities Ltd. and Standard Chartered Bank, restored the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. While deciding the issue in the fresh assessment, the assessing officer again made identical addition, which stood confirmed by learned first appellate authority.
Before me, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that out of the total payment of Rs.2,00,000 to Indiabulls Securities Ltd., an amount of Rs.1,41,000 was through account payee cheque issued from the Standard Chartered Bank account, whereas, an amount o Rs.59,000 was deposited in cash. He submitted, total cash in hand available with the assessee after business and household expenses was to the tune of Rs.3,83,646. Thus, he submitted, the cash deposit made with Indiabulls Securities Ltd. and Standard Chartered Bank was out of such cash in hand.
Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the assessing officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals).
I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
On a perusal of bank statement relating to Standard Chartered Bank, I am convinced that an amount of Rs.1,41,000 paid to Indiabulls Securities Ltd. is through cheque issued from Standard Chartered Bank account. Therefore, the source of Rs.1,41,000 stands explained.
As regards, the balance amount of cash deposits of Rs.3,59,000 in Standard Chartered Bank and India Bulls Securities Ltd., it is the case of the assessee that the source of such deposit was out of the cash in hand available with the assessee. It is a fact on record that the assessee is in the business of transporting fruits and has offered income on presumptive basis under Section 44AE of the Act. From the cash flow statement submitted before me, it is observed that after reducing the actual business and household expenses, cash in hand available with the assessee was to the tune of Rs.3,83,646. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the balance cash deposits are out of cash in hand is believable. Accordingly, I delete the addition of Rs.5,00,000 made under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act,1961.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026