MARGOOB ALI,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4683/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the assessee's accumulated past savings and agricultural income. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was considered to meet the ends of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's cash deposit of Rs. 11,77,000/- in the relevant previous year was treated as unexplained. The assessee argued that their peak cash deposit was only Rs. 3.90 lakhs and that past savings and agricultural income should be considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposit of Rs. 11,77,000/- could be treated as unexplained without considering past savings and agricultural income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 147

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: Adv. (VC)
Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 01.06.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065116233(1), dated 24.05.2024 involving proceedings under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No. 4683/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee/appellants herein appears to be aggrieved against both the learned lower authority’s respective assessment and the lower appellate findings treating his entire cash deposit in the relevant previous year amounting to Rs.11,77,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act. 3. That being the case, the learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s cash flow statement as extracted at page 8 of the CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion indicating peak deposit amount as on 09.07.2011 to the tune of Rs.3.90 lakhs only. This is further coupled with the fact that both the learned lower authorities have not granted credit of the assessee’s accumulated past savings as well as he is stated to be an agriculturist wherein such cash accumulation could not be altogether ruled out since involving an unorganized sector. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs only in the assessee’s hands would meet the end of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.8.77 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 4683/Del/2026

4.

Delay of 636 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC).

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 GP/Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →