Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- confirmed by the lower authorities, which was found deposited in the bank/FDR. The authorities held that the assessee could not demonstrate the source of these deposits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the deposits were out of the closure proceeds of a previous FDR and reinvested. Since the Revenue could not rebut this factual aspect, the addition was not sustainable and ordered to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee could demonstrate the source of the impugned deposits, and if not, whether the addition made by the lower authorities is sustainable.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
Year : 2012-13 Dineshbhai Babubhai Patel The ITO बनाम/ Shiyo Chowk Ward-1(3)(2) v/s. Nr. Ayodhyapuri Society Petlad – 365 068 Dharmaj-Petlad, ] Anand – 388 430 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: BDLPP 5674 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pramesh B. Doshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 06/05/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The assessee, in this appeal, is aggrieved against the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- found deposited in the bank/FDR. Dineshbhai Babubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13
The lower authorities have made/confirmed the impugned addition holding that the assessee could not demonstrate the source of the aforesaid deposits.
Before this Tribunal, the Ld. AR of the assessee has demonstrated that the aforesaid deposits/FDR of Rs.10 lakhs made on 16/01/2012 was out of the closure proceeds of another FDR, which was closed on 13/01/2012 and the proceeds of the same was reinvested in another FDR dated 16/01/2012.
The Ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid factual aspect on the file. In view of this, the impugned addition is not sustainable, the same is ordered to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.