HARESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1, VIJAYANAGARAM, VIJAYANAGARAM

ITA 594/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 August 2026AY 2020-20216 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient opening cash balance from previous years, supported by cash flow statements and balance sheets, to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was erroneous.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 53,85,000/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of this amount, stating the assessee failed to explain the source with known income. The CIT(A) sustained this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits with available opening cash balance and other financial documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

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- 26/1085986479(1) dated 13.02.2026 for the Assessment Year 2020- 2021. 1 Haresh Kumar Lalwani

2.

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

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 →