ANIL KUMAR YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(2), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1496/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to cash deposits, finding that the assessee had sufficient sources from his father's account (Rs. 10,00,000/-) and his own bank account (Rs. 7,88,100/-). For the salary income, the original addition of Rs. 1,88,349/- was confirmed based on Form 26AS entries, while the CIT(A)'s enhancement action was reversed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a reassessment order for AY 2011-12, where additions were made for unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 11,26,930/- and salary income of Rs. 1,88,349/-. These additions were initiated under Section 148/147 due to escaped assessment and partly confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made during reassessment proceedings for unexplained cash deposits and salary income were justified, and if the CIT(A)'s enhancement of salary income was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.06.2025Pronounced: 25.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Anil Kumar Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Dhanna Ram, VPO Kherki Ward-1(2), Daula, Farrukhnagar, Gurgaon Gurgaon-122004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AQCPK2314D Assessee by: Sh. Richank Malhotra, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon’s in case No.491/18-19, dated 19.06.2019, in proceedings u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

A perusal of the instant case file reveals that the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee after recording it’s reasons to believe that the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.11,26,930/- as well as salary income of Rs.1,88,349/-; had escaped assessment. It’s re-assessment framed on 17.12.2018 ended up making both these additions in the assessee’s hands which

4.

That being the case, it is noticed that not only the assessee had cash withdrawals of Rs.10,00,000/- from his father’s account but also from his own bank account of Rs.7,88,100/- which could duly be held source of the cash addition of Rs.11,36,900/- in entirety. This former addition is deleted.

5.

So far as his salary income addition is concerned, it is noticed that he had infact received an amount of Rs.1,88,349/- only going by corresponding Form 26AS entries. That being the case, no merit is found in the learned CIT(A)’s enhancement action which is hereby reversed and the original addition of Rs.1,88,349/- stands confirmed.

6.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →