SHRI. RAJAN SHARMA,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4), BENGALURU
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 found the assessee's explanation plausible, considering his age, pension, and the prior cash withdrawal. The tribunal held that the source of the cash deposit was explained.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a retired army officer, deposited Rs. 7,01,000 in cash into his bank accounts during the demonetisation period. He claimed this was from Rs. 8,00,000 cash withdrawn in 2015 for medical emergencies.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits made during demonetisation were adequately explained by prior cash withdrawals for medical emergencies.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” “B” BENCH, BENGALURU
O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi and it relates to AY 2017-18.
The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.7,01,000/- being cash deposit made into his bank account during the demonetisation period.
The facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee is a retired army officer and is drawing pension. During demonetisation period the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.7,01,000/- in aggregate in two bank accounts. With asked about the sources, the assessee submitted that he had withdrawn cash on 05.06.2015 to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- from ICICI Bank and has kept the cash with him. It was submitted that he has kept the money in hand in order to meet emergency medical treatment, as he is suffering from heart disease. The AO took the view that the assessee, being an army officer, is provided with free treatment facilities and hence the claim of keeping of cash at home is not acceptable. The AO has also noticed that the assessee has made deposits and withdrawals subsequent to the date of withdrawal of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account. Accordingly he assessed the amount of Rs.7,01,000/- as unexplained cash under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act"). The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same.
I heard the parties and perused the record. The learned A.R. took me through the copies of bank account placed in the paper book. A perusal of the same would show that the assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that the assessee had kept the money in cash with him in order to meet medical emergencies. The assessee is a pensioner and there is no other material to show that the cash of Rs.8,00,000/- withdrawn earlier had been spent away. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the explanation of the assessee that he has made the deposit of Rs.7,01,000/- out of the cash withdrawal made earlier is quite plausible. Accordingly in my view the sources for making deposits stand explained in this case.
Accordingly I set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.7,01,000/-.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st June, 2022.
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 →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026