AMEETA PARAMANAND NADKARNI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6477/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits was plausible, considering the cash withdrawals and availability of funds. The Tribunal noted that the AO arbitrarily restricted cash withdrawals and Streedhan without proper basis. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 17,56,500/- in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated Rs. 7,64,940/- as unexplained money and added it to the assessee's income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed the source of the deposits was from earlier cash withdrawals and personal savings/streedhan.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization were adequately explained by her savings and withdrawals, and if the addition by the AO was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Delhi, dated 29-08-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 7,64,940/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟).

2

2.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs. 8,57,020/-, which was selected for scrutiny and thereafter notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →