SHRINIVAS VIJAY TANDALE,THANE vs. ITO -WD 3(1), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1838/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2022AY 2017-1812 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash availability from withdrawals from partnership firms and personal accounts to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited cash into his bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits, stating the source from partnership firm withdrawals was not satisfactory. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions with a minor ad hoc allowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period were satisfactorily explained by withdrawals from partnership firms and personal accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chotani &, Ms. Neeta Jeph, DR
For Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph, DR

आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. दवभागीयप्रदतदनदध, आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →