NEERAJ KANT LAXMAN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), MUZAFFARNAGAE
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 assessee's explanation for cash deposits, including opening balance and withdrawals, was largely accepted. The inability to produce one person for examination should not lead to the rejection of the entire claim.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared income and later faced an addition of Rs. 21,38,000 by the AO for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 5,69,800 on a peak basis.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits is sustainable when the assessee provides explanations for the source, including opening balance and withdrawals, and most explanations are accepted.
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
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 21.2.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar for the assessment year 2012-13.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of an amount of Rs.5,69,800 made under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act,1961.
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute the assessee filed his return of income on 14.10.2012 declaring income of Rs.4,95,770. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.21,38,000 made in the bank account. In the reply furnished, though, the assessee stated that the cash deposits were made out of explained sources, however, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. Accordingly, he added back the amount of Rs.21,38,000 to the income of the assessee. Assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals).
After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the addition has to be made on peak basis. Accordingly, he restricted the addition to Rs.5,69,800.
I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record.
It is observed, while explaining the source of cash deposits made in the bank account to the tune of Rs.21,38,000 the assessee has claimed availability of opening cash balance of Rs.12,00,000 as on 31.03.2012. Further, the assessee has stated that the cash deposits were out of several withdrawals made during the year. In this regard, the assessee has submitted that he used to withdraw cash either through relatives or persons who were employed by him. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer had examined the persons who used to withdraw money from bank account and their confirmations were also filed. As could be seen from the facts on record, the assessee’s contention regarding withdrawals made by relatives and other persons were accepted in case of all persons except one, namely, Mr. Subhash who could not be produced for examination of the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings. However, it is fact on record that a sworn affidavit of the concerned person was filed in course of remand proceedings. When assessee’s explanation with regard to withdrawals of cash through different persons was found correct in case of most of the persons, only because one of the persons, could not be produced, for whatever may be the reason, solely on that basis, assessee’s claim cannot be rejected. It is a fact on record that departmental authorities have accepted assessee’s explanation regarding availability of cash out of opening cash balance and withdrawals made during the years, for which reason, the addition has been scaled down from Rs.21,38,000 to Rs.5,69,800.
In my view, the addition of Rs.5,69,800 also cannot survive as the explanation furnished by the assessee for explaining the source of cash deposits will also hold good in respect of such addition.
Accordingly, I delete the addition of Rs.5,69,800.
In view of my decision on merits, the grounds raised on legal issues having become academic, do not require adjudication.
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 →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026