M/S. VIJAY H. LILAWALA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the entire bank deposits could not be added as unexplained income, especially when the assessee had disclosed income from retail business. The peak credit balance was also considered in relation to the declared net profit.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 20,38,261/- to the assessee's income, treating deposits in the bank account as unexplained. The assessee claimed these deposits were from retail trading of plastic bags but failed to provide sufficient details.
What were the issues?
Whether entire bank deposits can be added as unexplained income when the assessee claims it is from retail business, and if the peak credit balance should be considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. PradipShantilal Patel18 citing42 Taxmann.com 2 · 2014 · HC
- Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v. ITO16 citing100 Taxmann.com 325 · 2018 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI O.P.MEENA
O R D E R
PER O.P.MEENA, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Surat [in short “the CIT(A)”] dated 24-05-2016, for the assessment year 2008-09.
Ground No.1 & 3 are reopening of assessment is not pressed before us, hence, the same is treated as dismissed as not pressed. Ground no.2 relates to confirming the action of the AO in making 3. addition of Rs.20,38,261/- on account of deposit in the bank account from undisclosed sources. Brief facts of the cases are that the AO noticed that there are deposits 4. to the tune of Rs.20,38,261/- in his bank account for the year under consideration. It was explained that the cash deposit in the bank account M/s. Vijay H Lilawala v. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5),Surat/ITA. 2044/AHD/2016/A.Y.2008-09 Page 2 of 4 represents cash received from retail trading of plastic bags. However, the assessee has failed to furnish any details regarding plastic bags, therefore, the AO treated the same as unexplained and made the addition accordingly. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). Wherein it was submitted that the assessee has retailer trading of plastic bags having turn of Rs.13,27,900/- and net profit shows at Rs.1,08,290/-. However, the CIT(A) observed that the appellant had never filed any appeal for the relevant assessment year. Further, no details of registration with VAT/Sales Tax Authorities, any registration with local authorities for running the business under the Shop and Establishment Act, etc. was furnished. The bank account has not been given, hence the explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO was confirmed. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is a retail traders of plastic bag having turnover of Rs.21,55,084/-. The assessee is very small retail dealer in plastic bag and after death of his brother in a car accident as on 03-03-2013 and his family facing complete financial crises and somehow managing affairs of the family. Therefore, it was contended that total transactions appeared in the bank account cannot be added instead of profit embedded therein can be added. The ld. counsel drawn out attention to bank account statement referred at paper book page 1, 2, 3 & 4. We show that credit and debits as well as the debits are appearing in the name of various business concerns. We suggest that the assessee was engaged in retail business more
More judgments on Section 44AF
- Kamlesh Puranmal Agrawal, Surat vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), SuratITA 1152/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
- Vinodkumar Ramubhai Patel, Valsad vs Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4, NavsariITA 332/SRT/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2026AY 2010-11
- Tej Pal Singh, Haridwar vs ITO, RoorkeeITA 915/DDN/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
- Vikram Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs ITO, Assessment Unit It Department, MumbaiITA 917/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
- Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), SuratITA 543/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026