NARESH RAMESH DESHMUKH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , PALGHAR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that the money belonged to clients and was used for legitimate purposes. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee. Considering the principles of substantial justice and providing a fair opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registration agent, deposited Rs. 25,29,500 in cash in Specified Bank Notes during the demonetization period. The AO added this amount as unexplained money under Section 69A, and the CIT(A) confirmed it. The assessee argued that the money belonged to clients and was used for stamp duty and registration charges, and that the source and application were explained.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits made during demonetization by a registration agent, claimed to be on behalf of clients for stamp duty and registration, constitute unexplained money under Section 69A. Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 250,Section 115BBE,Section 253(5),Section 44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE BR BASKARANHON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 05.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 30.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2017-18 . The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Addition of cash deposits of Rs. 25,29,500 in bank during the demonetization period as unexplained money under section 69A 2 Naresh Ramesh Deshmukh, Mumbai On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,29,500 as unexplained money under section 69A in respect of the aggregate cash deposited in bank in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during the demonetisation period without appreciating that this money did not belong to the Appellant but belonged to the Appellant's clients on whose behalf the Appellant e-paid stamp duty, registration charges, etc. to the State Government out of this money for registration of the clients' property documents as the Appellant is in the profession of registration agent for documents of immovable properties with the office of the
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
