GAURAV HARSHADBHAI CHOKSHI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

ITA 552/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by demonstrating that the cash deposits of Rs. 14,37,910/- were sufficiently covered by prior cash withdrawals of Rs. 15,73,500/- from the same bank account. A perusal of the bank statement and the 'Peak Credit Summary' confirmed the availability of cash in hand from documented withdrawals, which was sufficient to cover the subsequent deposits. The Tribunal found no contrary evidence suggesting the withdrawn funds were invested or expended elsewhere. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the source of cash deposits was prior withdrawals. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 14,37,910/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act was deleted. Ground Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were allowed. Ground No. 4, pertaining to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1), was dismissed as premature. The appeal was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gaurav Harshadbhai Chokshi, filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which dismissed his appeal against an assessment order dated March 23, 2024. The assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. Reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information about cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee contended that cash deposits of Rs. 14,37,910/- were sourced from prior cash withdrawals of Rs. 15,73,500/- from the same account. The Assessing Officer rejected this explanation, treating the deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxed it under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, citing the test of human probabilities and the assessee's failure to show re-deposits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) passed a non-speaking, vague, and cryptic order, failing to address all contentions raised by the assessee, thus rendering the order bad in law? 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,37,910/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act? 3. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, which allegedly made an addition without proper reasoning? 4. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1) of the Act? Assessee's Contentions: - The cash deposits of Rs. 14,37,910/- were fully sourced from prior cash withdrawals aggregating to Rs. 15,73,500/- from the same bank account. - The cash withdrawals demonstrably exceeded the cash deposits. - Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) pointed out any specific expenditure or alternate utilization of the withdrawn cash, making the rejection of cash flow availability based on conjecture and human probabilities unjustified. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee failed to establish a direct nexus between the cash withdrawals and subsequent re-deposits. - The addition made under Section 69A was rightly sustained by the Learned CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 274,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 23/12/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 23/03/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144Bof the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the c

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →