ASHWINKUMAR GAURISHANKER NAYAK,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2406/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 June 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details of cash withdrawals from previous years and cash in hand, which were not considered by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was not justified.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2,53,000/- under Section 69A as unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account for AY 2012-13. The assessee claimed the deposits were from prior cash withdrawals and savings.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were unexplained, and if the assessee provided sufficient evidence of prior cash withdrawals and savings to rebut the presumption of unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Vihar Soni, AR
For Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2406/AHD/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Ashwinkumar Gaurishanker Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Nayak, 412, Floor-2, Aaykar Bhawan, 35, Nayaknagar Society, Nr. Sachin Tower, Nr. Sardar Patil Colony, Vs. 100 Ft. Road, Anandnagar- Naranpura, Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat PAN: AFHPN4400K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vihar Soni, AR Respondent by : Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.04.2026 : 19.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2 [in short “CIT(A)”], Chennai dated 15.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-23.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,53,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made of Rs. 2,53,000/- on account of cash deposits in bank account not appreciating that majority thereof was sourced out of the cash earlier withdrawn from the bank account and remaining part represented past savings of appellant. 3. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.”

ITA No.2406/AHD/2025 Mr. Ashwinkumar Gaurishanker Nayak 3. The assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) observed that the assessee entered into share trading transaction of Rs.10,43,74,460/- but no return was filed. After following the due procedure and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) on 25.03.2019. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income u/s 148 of the Act on 16.04.2019 showing total income at Rs.1,53,380/- and also filed written submissions vide letter dated 16.04.2019. The assessee furnished details of the transactions carried out in various commodities as well as profit & loss account of the same which revealed that the assessee incurred a loss of Rs.2,32,248/- from the commodity transactions in A.Y. 2012-13. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.06.2019 and copy of reasons recorded was provided to the assessee. On verification of the bank account statement of the assessee with Bank of Baroda, the AO observed that during the year, the assessee deposited cash of Rs.2,53,000/- in his bank account. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessee not replied the same. The AO made addition of Rs.2,53,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the assessee has deposited cash which was withdrawn in the year 2010-11 and has given the details to the AO along with the bank statement. All these details were totally ignored by the AO as well as by the CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. There is a delay of 186 days in filing the present appeal for which

ITA No.2406/AHD/2025 Mr. Ashwinkumar Gaurishanker Nayak the assessee has filed condonation of delay application, thereby stating the reasons which appears to be genuine. Hence, the delay is condoned.

8.

As relates to cash deposits from the perusal of records, the assessee has given the details of cash withdrawal from the year 2010-11 from the bank statement and also given the details in tabulated form related to cash withdrawals from time to time from financial year 2009-10 & 2010-11. From the perusal of records, it appears that the assessee has substantially withdrawn and has cash in hand while depositing the same in A.Y. 2012-13. Thus, these documents/details were never taken on record by the AO and have not been considered at all despite being submitted before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). Thus, the addition made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act is not justified.

9.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2026

Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated: 19.06.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. Guard File

By order,

Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →