SHANU YADAVA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 4(2), GURUGRAM
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand as per the cash flow statement to make the deposits. The Department failed to prove the cash was utilized for other purposes. The AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee allegedly deposited Rs. 52,80,000/- in her bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 56,20,900/- as unaccounted income, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee claimed the deposits were from withdrawals related to a failed land deal.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of cash deposits in the bank account is justified, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds from a failed land deal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
per the cash flow statement there was sufficient cash in hand with the Assessee to re-deposit in her bank account and also finding merit in the claim of the Assessee regarding the unsuccessful land deal and returning of money and re-depositing in the bank account, we are of the opinion that the Ld. A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) have committed error in making/confirming the impugned addition. Accordingly, finding merit in the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the impugned addition is hereby deleted.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
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 →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
