ANIL KUMAR SINGH,VEER SADAN, VAISHNO DHAM, NEAT ETAH CHUNGI GT ROAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 48/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Singh, Vs. ACIT Circle-4(1)(1), 47,48, Veer Sadan, Vaishno Dham, Aayakar Bhawan, Marris Near Etah Chungi GT Road, Road, Aligarh-202001 Aligarh-202001 PAN : ASSPS1564P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Deependra Mohan, CA Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 18.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed in Appeal No CIT(A) Aligarh/10427/2019-20 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC (Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2017-18, wherein ld CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee’s appeal to the extent of deletion of addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as against the total addition of Rs. 30,01,000/- 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that registry has reported that the appeal is time barred by 111 days. Ld AR has drawn the attention of the bench towards assessee’s application for condonation of delay, wherein it

ITA No.48/Agr/2026 is mentioned that appellant was suffering from fistula surgery and was on compete bed rest from 20.08.2025 till 12.01.2026, which caused delay in filing the appeal. The application is supported with assessee’s uncontroverted affidavit. We treat the ground of assessee’s medical condition supported with assessee’s uncontroverted affidavit, as sufficient and condone the said delay of 111 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The brief facts are that assessee filed his return of income on 02.12.2017, declaring total income of Rs. 20,28,480/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. According to the information with the department, the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 30,01,000/- in his different bank accounts during the year under consideration. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee remained non compliant except his partial reply submitted through e-proceedings on 15.11.2019, submitting that the cash deposits were related to the truck freight, sale proceeds of agricultural products and building rent receipts. However, no supporting documents including cash flow, evidence of cash receipts, proof of agriculture products sale, land revenue records for claims of agriculture income, rental agreement and receipt of rent in cash, TDS details of tax deducted on rent etc. were filed during the assessment proceedings. Ld assessing officer, thus, completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Act, treating 2 | P a g e

ITA No.48/Agr/2026

the deposit of Rs. 30,01,000/- as unexplained money and added in assessee’s total income u/s. 69A of the Act, vide assessment order dated 09.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before ld CIT(A), who granted part relief by deleting part of additions to the extent of Rs. 15,00,000/- only. 5. Appellant assessee has filed this second appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts to upheld the impugned order partly, as passed by the assessing officer without taking the proper cognizance of the submission. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts to upheld the impugned order partly by Rs. 15,01,000/- treated as unexplained, however, the same was out of the availability duly evident by the authentic and tangible evidences. 3. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts to sustain impugned addition Rs. 15,01,000/- treated as unexplained neither finding out any adverse inference in the submissions filed by the appellant nor taking the proper cognizance of the nature of business activity as carried out by the appellant. 4. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts to sustain the impugned addition of Rs. 15,01,000/- u/s 69A, however, the same out of the availability raised by withdrawn from bank account and business activity. 5. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts to sustain impugned addition of Rs. 15,01,000/- u/s 69A, however, the source of the same was duly established by the appellant and the learned Assessing officer has failed to record the necessary satisfaction why the explanation provided by the appellant is unsatisfactory. 6. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts to sustain impugned addition on account of cash deposit treated the same as unexplained money whereas it duly evident that the appellant is engaged in the business activity of which the cash was there. 7. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts to sustain impugned addition, however, the same was made out of cash withdrawn and business activity, profit to which already declared in the return of income, the learned Assessing Officer has failed to recognized the profit which has already been declared, leading to dual taxation of the same. 3 | P a g e

ITA No.48/Agr/2026

4 | P a g e

ITA No.48/Agr/2026 partnership firm, interests, truck freight and from agriculture to a total of Rs. 27,07,257/-. Ld CIT(A) has further depicted assessee’s sources of cash received from the partnership firm and withdrawn from various bank accounts to a total amount of Rs. 34,68,000/-. The cash withdrawals have not been questioned by the revenue authorities, which are explained as source from which cash deposit of Rs. 30,01,000/- was made by the assessee in his bank accounts. It is not in dispute that assessee had indeed made cash withdrawals of Rs. 34,68,000/- during the year itself. It is not the case of the revenue that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee have been utilized for some business or personal purposes of the assessee by cogent evidences. Hence, the said cash withdrawals itself would certainly come to the rescue of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. Under these circumstances, the ld CIT(A) ought not to have given only partial relief to the assessee and instead should have deleted the complete addition of Rs. 30,01,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We order accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on – 19.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 19.05.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS 5 | P a g e

ITA No.48/Agr/2026