HIRALBEN JINESHBHAI BAVISI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2119/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 April 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the numerous small deposits were out of the assessee's business receipts from sales of food products and not unexplained cash credits. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing home-made food products, had several small cash deposits and corresponding withdrawals in her bank account. The Assessing Officer added the entire receipts as unexplained cash deposits, disregarding withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account, which are explained by business sales and corresponding withdrawals, can be treated as unexplained cash credits. Whether reopening under Section 148 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR
Hearing: 19/02/2026Pronounced: 01/04/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 26/09/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal: Asst. Year : 2012-13

“(Without prejudice to each other)

1.

In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. AO has erred in reopening the case of assessee u/s 148, which deserves to be quashed.

2.

In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred in making upholding the addition made by AO u/s. 69A on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 24,81,570/- in appellant's bank accounts.

3.

The appellant craves to leave, add, alter, modify and/or withdraw any grounds of appeal either before or during the course of the hearing.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the bank statements of the assessee and submitted that there were numerous small cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee with corresponding debits also. He explained that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing home-made food products and supplies them to retailers and customers. The assessee receives small amounts from customers, deposits them in the bank, withdraws the amounts for raw material purchases and uses them to sell products, and so on. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that these numerous small accounts were out of the business receipts of the assessee. He has submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had added the entire receipts without considering any corresponding withdrawals. He has demonstrated that the net cash deposits were in excess of cash withdrawals of Rs.2,72,260/-. The assessee has also filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act showing the total income of Rs.1,61,390/-.

3.

Considering the aforesaid factual aspects on the case, we find that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that the aforesaid numerous small deposits in the bank account of the assessee were out of sale-proceeds of home-made food products and the same were not on account any Hiralben Jineshbhai Bavisi vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13

unexplained cash credits. Therefore, the impugned addition made by the lower authorities is not sustainable and the same is hereby ordered to be deleted.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01 /04/2026. (Annapurna Gupta ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 01/04/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ#ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant

2.

"%थ$ / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 5. , , गाड" फाईल /

6.

Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →