VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(1)(3), ALIGARH

ITA 328/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 September 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the proprietorship firm was converted into a partnership firm and that the cash deposit was supported by the firm's audited books of accounts. The Tribunal found that the omission to substitute the PAN of the partnership firm in the bank account was a bank error and not sufficient to infer the deposit was in the assessee's individual capacity.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 30,00,000/- in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained cash, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee contended that the deposit was made by a partnership firm, M/s Ess Ess Brassware, in which he is a partner, and not in his individual capacity.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit made during demonetization was in the individual capacity of the assessee or on behalf of a partnership firm, and if the documentary evidence provided by the assessee was sufficient to establish the source of the deposit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 17.09.2026

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 passed in appeal No CIT(A) Aligarh/10329/2019-20 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC(Delhi) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2017-18, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, made vide assessment order dated 20.11.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

2.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the additions made in the asse

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 →