ANEEL KUMAR DAMODAR DAS ROOPELA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 818/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 July 2026AY 2013-144 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 assessee had complied with the requirements of the CBDT Circular by proving possession of sufficient resources. The CIT(A) wrongly ignored withdrawal entries and focused only on credit entries, thus the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, who migrated from Pakistan to India, declared cash and gold jewellery brought into the country. The Assessing Officer made an addition for the cash, and the CIT(A) enhanced the addition, disallowing the benefit of cash and jewellery due to lack of evidence for currency conversion and sale of jewellery.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash and jewellery brought by a migrant from Pakistan are taxable in India, and if the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition without considering all bank transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Om T Bajaj, AR
Hearing: 23/07/2026Pronounced: 29/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.818/Ahd/2026 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Aneel Kumar Damodar Das Roopela, ITO B-1003, Iscon Riverside, Shahibaug, बनाम/ Ward-7(2)(1), v/s. Ahmedabad-380004 Ahmedabad �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: BGXPR4636R (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�� यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Om T Bajaj, AR Revenue by : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 19/02/2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013- 14. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in not allowing the benefit of the cash and jewellery bought by the assessee at the time of migration from Pakistan to India on 29.02.2012 and further enhancing the addition from Rs. 10,09,640/- to Rs. 45,63,140/-.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was a West Pakistan resident and migrated to India on

ITA No.818/Ahd/2026 Aneel Kumar Damodar Das Roopela vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14 2 29.02.2012. The assessee filed declaration before the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) as required vide CBDT Circular F. No. 73/16/68- IT(A-II) whereby, the assessee intimated to the AO that he has brought a cash of Rs. 19,96,000/- and 20 Tolas of Gold jewellery. However, the AO reopened the assessment of the assessee and held that the cash brought from Pakistan was taxable in India. He, accordingly, made the addition of Rs. 10,09,640/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had duly filed the declaration as required by the CBDT Circular F. No. 73/16/68-IT(A-II) dated 03.02.1969. However, the CIT(A) noted that though the assessee had filed the declaration and had also showed that the assessee was possessed of sufficient resources including the Pakistani Behbood Bonds. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not produced the evidences that how the Pakistani currency was converted by the assessee in India and further if the jewellery was sold, to whom the said jewellery was sold and that the assessee had not produced the requisite bills and vouchers of sale of such jewellery. Ld. CIT(A) further noted that there was frequent transactions in the bank accounts of the assessee of withdrawals and credits. The Ld. CIT(A) added the entire credits totalling to Rs. 45,63,140/- and thereby enhanced the addition to that extent invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. Being aggrieved by order of the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us.

ITA No.818/Ahd/2026 Aneel Kumar Damodar Das Roopela vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14 3

6.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the CBDT Circular F. No. 73/16/68-IT(A-II) dated 03.02.1969 (supra), the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:

7.

A perusal of the aforesaid Circular would reveal that the assessee has to show that it was possessed of sufficient resources and funds to cover the money and jewellery brought into India. The assessee in this case duly demonstrated before the Ld. CIT(A) that he was possessed of sufficient resources. However, the Ld. CIT(A) goes on to examine that

ITA No.818/Ahd/2026 Aneel Kumar Damodar Das Roopela vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14 4 the assessee has not shown proof of conversion of Pakistani currency into the Indian currency etc.

8.

I have gone through the record and also heard the Ld. DR. The undisputed fact on the file is that the assessee had migrated to India on 29.02.1012. The assessee had filed declaration as required under Circular F. No. 73/16/68-IT(A-II) dated 03.02.1969. The assessee has proved that it was possessed of sufficient resources to cover the money and jewellery brought to India. Therefore, all the requirements of the CBDT Circular were complied with. Under the circumstances, there is no justification on the part of the CIT(A) either in confirming or enhancing the income of the assessee, especially, when the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the withdrawal entries and concentrated only on credit entries. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set-aside, the impugned additions stand deleted and the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/07/2026. Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 29/07/2025 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →