JAYANTA FANZEN LIGHTING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA WEST BENGAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1239/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Ld. AO had accepted the assessee's explanation in a remand report, which the Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly dismissed. Citing precedents, the ITAT held that the assessee had duly explained the source of the cash deposits as originating from previous withdrawals, and therefore, the addition was unwarranted. The ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and directed the Ld. AO to delete the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited ₹1,70,60,000/-, including ₹35,80,000/- during demonetization, into two bank accounts. The Ld. AO treated this as unexplained money under Section 69A due to the assessee's non-compliance during assessment proceedings, and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted additional evidence, including bank statements showing withdrawals and explanations that the deposits were re-deposits of earlier withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made by the assessee, particularly during the demonetization period, should be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, when the assessee claims the deposits were from earlier cash withdrawals from their own bank accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(2),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AR
For Respondent: Shri Dipu Koley, DR
Hearing: 28.10.2025Pronounced: 19.11.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 07.04.2025 for the AY 2017-18.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee on the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition by the ld. CIT (A) of ₹1,70,63,000/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposit.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 26.10.2017, declaring income of ₹9,17,340/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer

4.

Thereafter, the assessee challenged the order before the ld. CIT (A), who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee after taking into consideration the contention/ submissions along with evidences and also the remand report called for by the ld. CIT (A) during the appellate proceedings.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly the assessee was non- compliant during the assessment proceedings by not responding to the various notices issued to the assessee and therefore, the cash deposited during the year including the cash deposited of ₹35,80,000/- during demonetization period was treated by the ld. AO as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. We note that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished before the ld. CIT (A)

i) Joginder Kaur vs ITO (2024) 169 taxmann.com 90(Amritsar) ii) Jaspal Singh Sehgal vs ITO, 47 ITR (T) 193 (Mum) iii) Ajaya Data vs ACIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 308 (Jaipur) 06. In the case of Joginder Kaur vs ITO (2024) 169 taxmann.com 99 (Amritsar), the Co-ordinate Bench has held that where the assessee has submitted the details of cash summary showing inflow and outflow cash in the relevant year to show that cash has been withdrawn and redeposited, then the assessee was to be allowed the benefit of redeposit and the impugned addition deserved to be deleted. For the sake of brevity, the relevant findings of the Tribunal are reproduced as under:

“12. We have heard both the counsels at length and considered all the materials on record including the paper book and synopsis filed by the assessee and the various judicial citations referred to by the assessee. 12.1 We proceed to decide the issue on the merits of the case as contained in ground no 6 of the memorandum. 12.2 We find that the dispute regarding sale of land vide an agreement of sale dated 10/04/2008 , executed by the assessee and her family members and consequent receipt of sale proceeds by cash and cheque, on various dates during the FY 2008-09 as narrated by the AO in the assessment order ( page -2 and 3 / para - 2 ), and also narrated by the Ld. CIT (A) in his appeal order, are factual events that has occurred in the FY 2008-09 ( relevant to the A.Y. 2009- 10 ) , andare issues to which we are not concerned at the moment, because it does not relate to the year under appeal . 12.3 We only focus on the financial transactions in the bank account of the assessee in PNB Gramin Bank , for the financial year 2009-10 ( Asst year 2010-11 ) the relevant year under appeal. We find on reading of the bank statement, that the opening balance brought forward on 1st April 2009 is 20. 30 lakhs , and there has been subsequent

6.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. We note that the only issue in this ground is whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not allowing set off of cash considered unexplained by him against the cash withdrawal of Rs.4,72,000/- made from M/s Vijay Industries between 05.04.2014 to 20.04.2015. We note that no document is found in search to come to a conclusion that the amount withdrawn by the assessee from M/s Vijay Industries has been utilized elsewhere. There is no law which prohibits an assessee to keep cash in hand and therefore only because assessee has not given explanation as to why the cash was withdrawn, when he has withdrawn the cash earlier also cannot be a ground to reject the explanation of assessee. In various cases referred above, it has been held that where no evidence is brought on record that cash withdrawal has been utilized elsewhere, such cash should be considered as available with the assessee. Considering all these facts, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.4,28,830/- made by him.” 08. Considering the facts of the assessee in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →