INCKAH INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-12(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 149/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 September 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the cash deposits by showing withdrawals from the bank and that the AO had not pointed out any discrepancies in the audited accounts. The addition of Rs. 29,50,000 was deleted, and grounds related to it were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in highway maintenance, deposited Rs. 54,00,000 in cash during demonetization. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash deposits, disallowed ESI/PF expenses, and added penalty paid. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization are unexplained cash credits, and if Section 115BBE is applicable for AY 2017-18.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI

Before: SH. SUDHIR KUMAR & SH. MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: CA & Sh. Pranav Yadav
Hearing: 28/07/2026Pronounced: 18/09/2026

per cash book and not received cash credit viz i.e loan , share

application/ share capital. He further submitted that the cash

deposited cannot be treated unexplained cash credit under

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. During the assessment

proceedings the assessee filed the duly audited financial

statements, which was not rejected by the AO. Reliance is

placed on the following judgements:

(i) CIT v Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13(Delhi)

(ii) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v CIT [1953] 37 ITR 271

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC)

(iii) DCIT v Smt. Veena Awasthi (ITA No. 215/LKW/2016)

(iv) Jaya Aggarwal v Income Tax Officer (2018) 92 taxmann

108(Del)

(v) CIT v Kulwant Rai 291ITR 36(Del)

(vi) S.R. Venkata Ratnam v CIT(1981) 807 (Kar)

(vii) ITO v Deepali Sehgal ITA No. 5660/Del/2012

(viii) Nand Kumar Teneja v. ITO (ITA No. 4958/Del/2018

(ix) Gordhan vs. DCIT (ITA No. 811/Del/ 2015)

(x) Moongipa Investment Ltd. V. ITO (ITA No. 2605/Del/2007

(xi) Neeta Breja v ITO (ITA No. 524/Del/2017

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities

and submitted that the assessee has failed to explain the cash

deposit so the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

We have the parties and perused the materials available on

record. According to AO the assessee company deposited cash

of Rs.54,00,000/- in the bank account number

50200009113155 maintained with the HDFC Bank. After the

analysis the cash deposit trend of the assessee in various year

the AO observed that there is abnormal increase in cash deposit

during the F.Y.2016-17 and made the addition on the basis of

cash deposit pattern. The assessee has not made any cash

sales and cash deposited out of cash balance in hand. The

Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or

discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee.

The assessee filed the audited books of accounts by an

independent Chartered Accountant which was accepted by the

AO. The entire transaction of withdrawals and deposits are duly

reflected in the bank account of the assessee and verifiable from

relevant records. We find that the assessee has succeed to

explain the cash deposit before the AO because assessee

deposited amount of Rs. 26,50,000/- withdrawn from the bank

during the period from 01-10-2016 to 08-11-2016 and rest was

explained. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO has made wrong

addition of Rs.29,50,000/- on account of alleged unexplained

credit u/s 68 of the Act and applied section 115BBE of the Act

and charged tac @60% + surcharge. In the case of S.M.I.L.E.

Microfinance Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 65 Madras the Hon’ble Madras High

Court held that the higher tax rate of 60% + surcharge is not

applicable for A.Y. 2017-18. In the view of above facts, the,

additions in dispute is deleted and ground no.2, 4 & 5 raised by

the assessee are allowed.

Ground No.3

8.

This ground is not pressed by the Ld. AR, hence decided against the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SR BHATNAGAR Date: 18.09.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →