NIRAJ KUMAR MURARKA,GURGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), GURGOAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that some past cash accumulations could not be ruled out, considering the assessee's socio-economic status. It deemed a lump sum addition of Rs.65,000/- to be just and proper, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. The core issue was the lower authorities' action of treating the assessee's opening cash of Rs.3,65,800/- as unexplained, partly based on a bank withdrawal of Rs.2,35,000/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities were correct in treating the assessee's opening cash as unexplained, and if not, what would be an appropriate addition.
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
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Niraj Kumar Murarka, Vs CIT(A), H. No. Q-72, DLF New Town HSIIDC Building, Udyog Heights, Sector-90, Gurgaon, Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122009 Haryana-122016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AWOPM2488G Assessee by: Sh. Sumit Goenka, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052427567(1) dated 28.04.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s opening cash of Rs.3,65,800/- as unexplained, it is noticed from a perusal of the case records at page 31 comprising of his bank statement that he had withdrawn a total sum of Rs.2,35,000/- from corporation bank Niraj Kumar Murarka account. This is indeed coupled with the fact that keeping in mind the assessee’s socio economic status some past accumulations in cash in his hands could not be altogether ruled out.
Be that as it may, after having considered all the relevant facts in the instant case file, the tribunal hereby deems it appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.65,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The impugned addition to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- stands deleted. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/05/2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026