VINODCHANDRA CHIMANLAL BAROT,ANAND vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT JURIS AO-THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

Learned CIT(A) has gravely erred in confirming AO order in making an addition of Rs. 1,82,175/- of salary income received during the year as unreported income.

Your appellant prays to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

The assessee is a retired individual who opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) during the year under consideration. During the relevant previous year, the assessee received salary of Rs. 1,82,175/- for the period he remained in service and, thereafter, received pension of Rs. 1,18,824/-. Since the total income of the assessee for the year was below the maximum exemption limit, he did not file the return of income. It is submitted that the assessee had withdrawn cash from his savings bank account on various dates through self-cheques as well as ATM withdrawals. The said withdrawals were made out of the amounts credited to his bank account towards gratuity and provident fund received upon retirement. The cash so withdrawn was utilized for repayment of outstanding loans taken from relatives for the marriage of his daughter in the earlier years. After making such repayments, the surplus cash remaining with the appellant was redeposited into the same savings bank account. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the bank statement obtained under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treated the cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 2,02,000/- as unexplained and made the addition accordingly.

Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite documents and evidences in support of his claim.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the cash withdrawals made by the assessee from the very same bank account during the relevant previous year, including the withdrawals preceding the corresponding cash deposits. It was contended that the impugned addition was made without appreciating the complete flow of funds reflected in the bank account. In support of the aforesaid contention, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record the following documents:

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 17.07.2026 - (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) VICE-PRESIDENT () Ahmedabad; Dated 17.07.2026 - 4– MV

""थ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.