VENU MYNENI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-II, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the evidence furnished by the assessee under Rule 46A and that the procedure followed was not according to rules or principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the amounts deposited were explained by withdrawals from the assessee's NRE account and encashed traveler cheques.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a non-resident, had significant cash deposits in their bank account. The Assessing Officer added these deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee's explanations of travel cheques and gifts from their father lacked sufficient evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits in a bank account can be treated as unexplained credits when the assessee provides explanations and evidence, and whether the CIT(A) correctly admitted and considered additional evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull525 citing87 ITR 349 · 1973 · SC · Read judgment
- DCIT v. Rohini Builders489 citing256 ITR 360 · 2002 · HC
- Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT340 citing264 ITR 254 · 2003 · HC
- Tolaram Daga v. CIT59 citing59 ITR 632 · 1966 · HC
- Hastimal v. CIT57 citing49 ITR 273 · 1963 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI D. MANMOHAN & SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH
PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. :
This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, dated 30-06-2017 on the issue of cash deposits in Bank account.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non- resident and for the AY. 2010-11, filed return of income on 28- 12-2010 admitting total income at Rs. 27,580/-. During the course of assessment, Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that there were cash deposits in A/c No. 403309318 maintained with :- 2 -: Indian Bank, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. The details of cash deposits are as under:
Sl.No. Date Particulars Amount (Rs) 1 21-07-2009 Interest 84 2 24-11-2009 By cash deposit 3,27,000 Depo
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs M/S. Happy Home Corporation, SuratSurat15 Jan 2019Allowed
Also relies on Hastimal v. CIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details like depositor names, addresses, PANs, confirmations, and bank statements. The AO failed to disprove the material facts in the affi...
- ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs M/S Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd., BhopalIndore25 Jul 2023Dismissed
Also relies on Hastimal v. CIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing necessary documentation for the loans. The AO's doubts about the creditworthiness of the lenders were not suf...
- Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs ITO, Ward- 48(5), New DelhiDelhi30 May 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on Hastimal v. CIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) were not applicable as the contract for share acquisition was completed before the effective date. Regarding the unsecured loan, the Tribunal found that the ass...
- Kailash Chander, Hisar vs Income Tax Officer, HisarDelhi2 Aug 2016Allowed
Also relies on Tolaram Daga v. CIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving the identity and creditworthiness of the depositors. The AO and CIT(A) were not justified in making additions based on assum...
- Ashwini Kumar Taneja, New Delhi vs ITO Ward - 46(3), New DelhiDelhi27 May 2024Allowed
Also relies on Hastimal v. CIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that when the assessee establishes the identity of the creditors and the Revenue accepts the genuineness of a part of the transaction, it is not justified to disbelieve the remaining part merely based o...
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
