SIMMANNA NAKKA,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME-TAX-OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

ITA 683/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 July 2026AY 2017-1814 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of cash deposits as undisclosed income, finding the assessee's explanation lacked credibility and contemporaneous evidence. However, it directed that the tax be levied at 30% instead of 60%, following a favorable High Court decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 46.35 lakhs in cash during the demonetization period, claiming it was an advance for property transfer received years earlier and later returned. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner (Appeals) treated these deposits as undisclosed income under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization can be treated as undisclosed income without sufficient evidence, and the correct rate of taxation applicable to such income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

PER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079582905(1) 1

ITA 683/VIZ/2025 Simmanna Nakka

dated 13.08.2025, arising out of

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 →