RAJENDRA PANNALAL BORA ,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD - 1, YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the sum was part of business receipts, only the profit element should be taxed. Therefore, an addition of 8% of the sum was sustained, and the remaining addition was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's business receipts were scrutinized, leading to an addition of Rs. 9,44,599/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee argued these were business receipts and offered to pay tax on the net profit.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire unexplained cash deposit should be added as income, or only the profit element if it represents business receipts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR ‘SMC’ BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 02.12.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 09.01.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The sole grievance of the Assessee is against the addition u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.9,44,599/-. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee runs the business under the name of Jain Digital World and that the alleged unexplained money is part of the business receipts appearing in the bank account duly disclosed in the Income Tax Return and that the assessee is agrees to offer tax on the net profit element @ 8% of the alleged sum.
2 Rajendra Pannalal Bora
On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative supported the order of Learned CIT(A).
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and during Assessment Year 2017-18 information about cash deposit of Rs.7,40,500/- and Rs.77,14,500/- in the bank account held with Andhra Bank came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer who thereafter carried out the proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s144B of the Act. Learned Assessing Officer after duly examining the book of account of sole proprietor concern M/s.Jain Digital World only remained dissatisfied with the explanation about the cash deposit of Rs.9,44,599/-. I note that the assessee has offered the income of Rs.6,30,790/- in the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. The alleged sum has been deposited in the bank account through which assessee has carried out the business transactions which Learned Assessing Officer has accepted. I am therefore of the concerned view that since the alleged sum is part of the business receipts therefore only the profit element on such business receipts is liable to be taxed. Thus, applying the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, I sustain addition of Rs.75,565/- which is 8% of the alleged sum and delete the remaining addition of Rs.8,68,994/-. Finding of learned CIT(A) is reversed and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed as per the terms indicated above.
3 Rajendra Pannalal Bora
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 13th day of April, 2026. (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nagpur/ दिन ांक / Dated : 13th April, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.04.15 16:48:44 +05'30'
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, न गपुर SMC बेंच, 4. न गपुर / DR, ITAT, “Nagpur SMC Bench, Nagpur ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,
////
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 →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026