BADAM KRISHNAMURTHY SHOBHA,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), MYSORE

ITA 1576/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 September 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable because the source of the money was explained as business receipts of a partnership firm. The mere fact that Specified Bank Notes were received after a certain date does not automatically make the money unexplained.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 19,53,000 in cash into her bank account during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated Rs. 9,51,400 of these deposits, made after November 24, 2016, as unexplained money under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made in old currency after the permitted date can be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A if the source is otherwise explained as business receipts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter, the Ld. CIT(A)) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset

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 →