SANJAY TEJKARAN AGARWAL,THANE(WEST) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, THANE , THANE (WEST)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4514/MUM/2024Status: HeardITAT Mumbai11 February 2025Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4514/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjay Tejkaran Agarwal A/803, Monarch Ashar Residency Pokharan Road No.02 Vasant Vihar Thane (W) Maharashtra - 400610 [PAN: AGPPA7098B] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Vs Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Thane प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M. Subramanian – Advocate Revenue by : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearin1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee was not examined by the authorities below. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh examination after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring total income. The AO noticed cash deposits in the bank account and a loan from an individual, treating them as unexplained cash credits and adding them to the income. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) with additional evidence, but the CIT(A) confirmed the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits and loan were justified without examining the additional evidence provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian – Advocate
Hearing: 11/02/2025Pronounced: 11/02/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 04/07/2024 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to AY 2014-15.

2.

The grievance of the assessee relates to the addition on account of cash deposit in the bank account and unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 25,38,809/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed deposits in the bank account on various dates amounting to Rs.1,22,99,800/-. On receiving no plausible reply, the same was treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the income u/s 68 of the Act.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →