Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 270 days, but the delay was condoned due to a bonafide reason supported by a medical certificate. The core issue was the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 13,05,880/-.
Held
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were part of the assessee's gross turnover from his transporter business, which was reflected in the return of income. The explanation provided by the assessee was found to be plausible.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the bank account, representing part of the declared gross turnover from a transport business, can be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
69A, 44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y.2012-13) Sanjeev Chawla, S/o Shri Krishan Lal Chawla, H.No. 286, Vivekanand Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP 201002 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AMVPC-4308-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), CGO Complex-I, Purani Hapur Chungi, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Ghaziabad, UP 201002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Sahil Sharma & Sanjeev Prashar, Advocates �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 19/05/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 19/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 20.03.2024, for assessment year 2012-13.
The appeal is time barred by 270 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by Medical Certificate. After perusal of same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, but is for the reasons stated in the condonation petition which appears to be bonafide. Hence, delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.
(AY 2012-13) 3. Shri Sahil Sharma appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submitted that he is not pressing ground of appeal no. 2 to 4 challenging validity of the assessment. In light of the statement made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, grounds of appeal no. 2 to 4 are dismissed as not pressed.
4. In ground no. 5 & 6 of appeal, the assessee has assailed addition of Rs.13,05,880/- made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of unexplained cash deposits. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is a transporter. During Financial Year 2011-12, relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had taken some trucks from Smt. Vinita Jha and Shri Sunil Jha for plying on rent. During Financial Year 2011-12, the assessee had declared gross turn over from transport business Rs.14,50,000/- . The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 u/s. 44AD of the Act offering income to tax on presumptive basis. Cash deposits in the bank aggregating to Rs.13,00,000/- over the period of one year is the part of gross turnover of the assessee. He refers to bank statement at pages 20 & 21 of the paper book. He pointed that the aforesaid bank account has been reflected in the return of income. He contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) has disbelieved the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding source of cash deposits.
5. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary addition which is subject matter of appeal is addition on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account amounting to Rs.13,05,880/-. It is emanating from records that the aforesaid amount was deposited by the assessee over the (AY 2012-13) period of 12 months. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee is a transporter and cash deposits in the bank account are part of gross turnover of the assessee Rs.14,50,000/- which is duly reflected in the return of income. The assessee has offered income to tax u/s. 44AD of the Act. The bank account in which cash deposits have been made has been duly reflected in the return of income. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that the cash deposits in the said bank account have been included by the assessee in the return income being part of gross total turnover. I find the explanation furnished by the assessee plausible. The findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are reversed and ground no. 5 & 6 of appeal is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid.