HIMANSHU KWATRA,SHAHABAD MARKANDA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1305/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 April 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned cash deposits were sourced from the assessee's sales proceeds, which were supported by sales invoices and VAT returns. The assessee had also offered income on a presumptive basis under section 44AD, and the bank account was part of the financial statements. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from an assessment order where the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 34 Lacs on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee's submissions and subsequent remand proceedings did not alter the assessment, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during the demonetization period represent income from undisclosed sources when they can be explained by sales proceeds and are reflected in the assessee's financials.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →