VIRENDER KUMAR PRADESI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 35(7), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4856/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2026AY 2017-182 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were not unexplained as they could be attributed to the assessee's prior cash withdrawals. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2017-18, where cash deposits of Rs. 9,50,000 during the demonetization period were treated as unexplained. The assessee pointed to prior cash withdrawals from their bank account that corresponded to these deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during the demonetization period are unexplained when the assessee demonstrates prior cash withdrawals from their bank account.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv
Hearing: 30.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4856/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Virender Kumar Pardesi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Ashoka Apartment, Ward-35(7), Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi Delhi – 110085 PAN: AAHPP5601M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Sh. Tanishq Ahuja, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 1, Nashik’s order dated 20.03.2026 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1087641369(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, I notice that he seeks to reverse both the learned lower

ITA No.4856/Del/2026

authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.9,50,000/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; in assessment order dated 20.12.2019; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the case, the assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to his bank statement indicating withdrawals of Rs.6 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs on 10.05.2016, 12.05.2016 and 10.10.2012; respectively, which followed the impugned deposits forming subject matter of addition. Necessary inference which would arise herein is that the assessee has redeposited her cash withdrawals which could not have been treated as unexplained. The impugned addition of Rs.9.50 lakhs is deleted therefore. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05.08.2026 RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

2 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →