NIBEDITA PRIYADARSHINI SATAPATHY,ODISHA vs. ITO, WARD DHENKANAL, DHENKANAL

ITA 325/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the cash deposits, even before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 13,65,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits in her bank account. The assessee claimed the amount was received from relatives, but failed to provide credible documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits is justified when the assessee fails to provide credible documentary evidence for the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 17/09/2026Pronounced: 17/09/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, DELHI [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2015-16/10313875 dated 13.01.2026 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri B.R. Pattnaik, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the only issue in the assessee’s appeal is against the addition of Rs.13,65,500/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of cash d

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.

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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →