HARISH PANWAR,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was adequately supported by documentary evidence, including withdrawals from his partnership firm and the prior survey surrender. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 68,85,000 in cash into his bank account during the demonetization period. He explained the source as cash in hand from previous withdrawals from his partnership firm and a prior survey surrender.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposited during demonetization was adequately explained by the assessee, and whether Section 115BBE was applicable for the assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR
Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 07.11.2024 under P a g e | 2 Harish Panwar Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1.The Id.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 68,85,000/- made by the Id. AO on account of cash deposit made in the bank account. The addition so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts. 2.The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining charging of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3.The Id. CIT(A) has e
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 →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
