GEETA GUPTA,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AAYKAR BHAWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 171/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 April 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- by showing it was withdrawn from an OD account and subsequently re-deposited. Therefore, the addition to that extent should not be made.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring income and agricultural income. The case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13,55,488/- for unexplained cash deposits as the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization are to be treated as unexplained income when the assessee provides evidence of withdrawal from an OD account. Whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity of being heard and if the tax rate applied was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: DR (Physical hearing)
Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 24.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH (SMC), AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 171/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Geeta Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer 2, Bank House Colony, Ward-1(1)(1), Civil Court, Agra-282002. Agra. PAN : AFAPG7104C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajni Kan Verma, Adv. Department by Sh. Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR (Physical hearing) Date of hearing 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 24.04.2026 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs. 2,74,250/- with agricultural income of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 18.03.2018. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reasons that cash deposits during

ITA No.171Agr/2026

demonetization period. According, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and severed on the assessee. Since, there was no response from the assessee the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition to the extent of cash deposit made by the assessee during the year to the extent of Rs. 13,55,488/-. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi. After considering the details submission of the assessee and assessment record Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee has not filed any evidence as to crops sold in the market and source of cash deposit is an agricultural income which was not properly substantiated by the assessee. Accordingly, taking a lenient view considering agricultural income declared by the assessee, he gave part relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- and balance was upheld. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. Because the orders passed by the Authorities below are illegal, arbitrary and bad in law for the reason the Authorities below have not given proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as all the notices have issued on the e-mail of Chartered Accountant who filed the return of income of the appellant, as at that time there was a common practice that the persons filing the returns Le. practitioners used to mention the e-mail and mobile No. of their own and the assessee being female agriculturist was not familiar with the digital technology, therefore, the default for non-compliance, if any, was not on the part of the appellant.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.171Agr/2026

2.

Because upon due consideration of facts and in the overall circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) had fallen in error of fact and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,55,488/- as against the total addition of Rs. 13,55,488/- and giving relief only for Rs.2,00,000/- out of total addition without going into the facts of the case, how a huge income can be earned in a year without having any source of income and further no escapement can be presumed merely on account of some cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant as Bank deposits do not constitute income of the appellant. 3. Because the authorities below have erred in charging the tax at 60% as against the tax rate 30% under section 115BBE of the Income tax Act in particular ignoring the fact that the assessment of the appellant relates to assessment year 2017-18. 4. Because the impugned addition and impugned order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is bad in law, illegal, based on incorrect assumptions, erroneous as well as based on conjectures and surmises. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify any ground of appeal.” 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice relevant facts on record and further brought to our notice at page 4 of the paper book which is OD account taken by the assessee from Allahabad Bank, Agra as per which the assessee was granted Rs. 10,00,000/- OD facilitate and further he brought to our notice at page 6 of the paper book which is saving account maintained by the assessee with Allahabad Bank, Agra in which the funds were transferred from the OD account to the saving account on the same date of sanction on 04.03.2016 and the same was withdrawn by the assessee on the same date. Further Ld. AR submitted the cash was withdrawn by the assessee and the same was kept with her and due to declaration of demonetization the assessee re-deposited the same on 12.11.2016 of 3 | P a g e

ITA No.171Agr/2026

Rs. 8,00,000/- on 15.11.2016 deposited Rs. 2,75,000/- to close OD account. Ld. AR submitted that to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- the assessee has clearly established that cash withdrawn by the assessee was re-deposited in the OD account, therefore, to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- the addition cannot be made. I noticed that the assessee has declared agricultural income during the year under consideration to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Ld. CIT(Appeals) given part relief to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Since the assessee has already explained the source of cash to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- which was withdrawn by the assessee from the OD account and the same cash was subsequently re- deposited. Therefore, in our considered view to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- the assessee should be given benefit therefore, to the extent of Rs. 1,55,488/-. The assessee could not substantiate the cash deposit, therefore we inclined to partly allow the appeal preferred by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 .04.2026. Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.04.2026 *Santosh, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 4 | P a g e

ITA No.171Agr/2026

3.

CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →