DEEPAK MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to explain the deposits.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file returns for AY 2014-15 and 2017-18. The AO made additions for cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, claiming they were unexplained. The NFAC upheld these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made under Section 69A for unexplained cash credits were justified, given the evidence provided by the assessee to explain the source of funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 147,Section 148,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the respective orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), both dated 24.10.2025 for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2017-18. 2.0 Since the facts and the issues involved in the above captioned appeals are almost identical, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.
1 First, we will deal with the issues involved in the case of the assessee in ITA No.938/LKW/2025 for assessment year 2014-15. 2.2 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. The ITA Nos.938 & 939/LKW/2025 Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the ass
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.
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
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026