SHRADDHA BORA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-13 (1), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts regarding the ownership of the money. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and proper inquiry into the ownership of the cash deposits.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 14,24,700 under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, which were actual cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed the account was misused by her mother and brother for business purposes.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits was warranted, and whether the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the ownership of the deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-8, Pune dated 05.06.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, Wd. 13 (1) Pune, and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) - 8 Pune, may be held as bad in law for violating the principles of natural justice and quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs 14,24,700, u/s 68 of the Act, made by the A.O., Wd. 13 (1) Pune, and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) - 8 Pune, may be deleted.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it may be held that addition u/s 68 of the IT Act, is not warranted and the same may be vacated or such other appropriate order giving relief passed.
Appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ and any grounds of appeal
and fresh additional evidence at the time of hearing.”
3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessment was made in this case u/s 143(3) of the Act. Against the returned income of Rs.6,74,573/-, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.14,24,700/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. These amounts are the actual cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee.
4. During the assessment proceedings, it was submitted that the assessee’s bank account was misused by her mother, Smt. Shruti Daulatrao More and her brother, Shri Sankalp More. After collecting money from the friends and relatives for their business desires, the said amount was deposited in the assessee’s bank account. Narrating the developments relating to the ownership of operation of the said bank account, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that after mobilization of loans and advances from friends and relatives, the said cash was deposited by the brother with a view to conduct share business activities. The facts about the mobilizing or collecting money, depositing money in her account, leaving the house without informing the parents, non-repayment of the aforesaid money to the creditors, the failures of the brother in this regard, ultimate death of brother due to pressures from the creditors etc, were narrated. The details of FIR are on record. Further, referring to page 48A and 49A of the Paper Book etc, ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that the fact of loaning of money from the friends and relatives by her brother and ownership of the cash deposits in the bank account etc were
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 →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026