INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. CHENNA RAM TARAD, BARMER

ITA 201/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 August 2026AY 2017-1816 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition and allowing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any adverse material to disprove the genuineness of the sales, and the mere fact that SBNs were collected, even if unauthorized, did not negate the sales or render the cash deposit unexplained.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a petrol pump dealer, deposited Rs. 1,82,76,500/- in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's explanation of these deposits being from cash sales and added Rs. 1,33,64,500/- as unexplained income, also rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made in SBNs during demonetization, claimed to be from cash sales, can be treated as unexplained income. Whether the assessee's books of accounts can be rejected solely on the basis of unauthorized collection of SBNs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-Sr
Hearing: 17.08.2026Pronounced: 25.08.2026

Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 22.02.2024 under P a g e | 2 Chenna Ram Tarad Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:-

1.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,33,64,500/- made u/s 69A on account of unexplained cash deposits in SBN in the bank, by failing to appreciate the fact that source of case deposits in the bank was claimed to be sales made in SBN during dem

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →