HEMANT KESHAVRAO BARSAGADE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from withdrawals from their disclosed bank accounts prior to the investment date, thus explaining the source of the investment. Consequently, the addition for unexplained investment was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee made an investment of Rs. 10,00,000/- with M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Ltd. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained investment as the assessee claimed it was from a cash loan. The assessee later claimed the cash was withdrawn from their bank accounts.
What were the issues?
Whether the investment of Rs. 10,00,000/- was sufficiently explained by cash withdrawals from the assessee's bank accounts. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the primary addition is deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR SMC BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”) both dated 28.03.2024 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which are arising out of rectification order dated 24.02.2023 passed u/sec. 154 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and penalty order dated 19.09.2022 passed u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ITO, Ward-1, Chandrapur for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 respectively.
Registry has informed that there is a delay of 606 days in ITA No. 58/NAG/2026 and 602 days in ITA No. 99/NAG/2026 in filing the present appeals. Applications for condonation of delay along with affidavits are placed on re
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.
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 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026