MUKESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2, VIJAYNAGARAM

ITA 503/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 August 2026AY 2021-229 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's opening cash balance from previous years. Regarding the property difference, the Tribunal noted the assessee's request for a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and followed a previous decision where such additions were deleted in similar circumstances.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 67,45,000/- and purchased properties with a difference between sale deed value and fair market value of Rs. 30,76,375/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for both amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO erred in making additions for unexplained cash deposits and for the difference in property value without proper verification or reference to the DVO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Pronounced: 19.08.2026

PER SHRI MANJUNATHA G., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1079406546(1) dated 08.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2021- 22. 1 Mukesh Kumar Lalwani

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of i

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 →