INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAUT, BARAUT, DISTT. BAGHPAT vs. REENA JAIN, BINAULI, DISTT. BAGHPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4534/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 August 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, cash flow statements, and sales/purchase details, to explain the cash deposits. The monthly sales did not show significant deviation during the demonetization period.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order that deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1,06,44,200/- during the demonetization period. The assessee, a petrol pump proprietor, explained the deposits as arising from sales receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during the demonetization period by a petrol pump proprietor are unexplained income. Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Pronounced: 31.08.2026

PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 16.02.2026 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086044579(1)arising out of the assessment

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4534/Del/2026 Reena Jain (AY: 2017-18) order dated 28.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ITO-1(5) Meerut, for AY: 2017-18.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that the issue involved in the appeal is the addition made in the case of assesse on account of cash deposits of Rs.1,06,44,200/- u/s 69A as unexplained income. Assessee is a proprietor of petrol pump retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation and the assessment was completed making this addition of the cash deposited during demonetization period which has been deleted by ld. CIT(A) by following relevant findings;

“The appellant during the year under consideration is engaged in the business of petroleum in the name & style of M/s Binauli Filling Station.The appellant during the course of proceedings has submitted the Bank statements, Cash flow statements, Sales and purchase details. On verification of the details it is seen that the monthly sales do not show much deviation for the months of November and December compared to other months of same FY. The appellant also submitted the complete bank account statement during the FY 2016-17. Therefore, the explanation given by the appellant that the cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period is from her Sales receipts, is accepted. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,06,44,200/- u/s 69A of the Act as the nature and source of the said money is proved to be out of books of accounts and is explained. Thus, the ground raised towards addition made u/s 69A by the appellant stands allowed on law as well as on facts. This ground of appeal is allowed.”

3.

Now, though ld. DR has supported the findings of ld. AO, however, we find from the material on record that at page No. 68-72 assessee has provided copy of account of Indian Oil Corporation in the books of assesse for October, 2016 to December, 2016. The other details which are on record are included VAT returns in October, 2016 to December, 2016 and purchase registers in

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4534/Del/2026 Reena Jain (AY: 2017-18) October, 2016 to December, 2016. Ld. DR has though submitted that these are additional evidences and remand report from AO should have been called however, after going through the impugned assessment order we find that there is reference of reply filed by the assesse to response of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The copy of same available in the paper book at page No. 3-6 show that by reply dated 12.11.2019 assessee had annexed copy of ITR, computation and copy of audit report. However, thereafter if any further notices were issued is not reflected from the assessment order and ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the vital evidences in the form of sale and purchase details to give the assesse benefit and we don’t find any reason to interfere in the same. 4. More so, to our mind too, being the case of retail outlet for petrol pump/diesel, availability of stock corresponding to cash sales, which were allowed during the demonetization period on account of sales being made by such venture should not have been basis of making addition at first instance itself at all.

5.

In the light of aforesaid, we find no substance in the ground raised. The appeal of department is accordingly, dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- KRINWANT SAHAY ANUBHAV SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 4534/Del/2026 Reena Jain (AY: 2017-18)

Dated: 31.08.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →