SMT. JAYABEN MATHURDAS KANERIA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits, particularly regarding the opening cash balance and the benefit of telescoping. The explanations offered were considered insufficient and lacking in documentary support.
What were the facts?
The assessee made significant cash deposits in a bank account that was not initially disclosed in their tax returns. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these deposits as income from undisclosed sources, citing a lack of proper explanation and previous admissions of unaccounted income.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the cash deposits in the bank account constituted income from undisclosed sources, and if the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping or peak credit to explain the deposits.
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.
- Sumati Dayal v. CIT1,967 citing214 ITR 801 · 1995 · SC · Read judgment
- Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT209 citing108 ITR 345 · 1977 · SC
- CIT v. Raj Kumar119 citing318 ITR 462 · 2009 · HC · Read judgment
- Satya Prasad v. Income Tax Officer14 citing141 ITD 403 · 2013 · ITAT
- Keval Kuman Jain v. ACIT10 citing144 ITD 672 · 2013 · ITAT
Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "याियक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’s.2031 & 2663/AHD/2015/SRT िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ward-3(3), Surat.
Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [PAN: ADPPK 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’s.1545 & 2029/AHD/2015/SRT िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ward-3(3), Surat.
Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [PAN: ADPPK 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/AHD/2015/SRT िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ward-3(3), Surat.
Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [PAN: AIZPK 31
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.
- Shri Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), SuratSurat16 Aug 2018Dismissed
Also relies on Keval Kuman Jain v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits, particularly regarding the opening cash balance and the benefit of telescoping. The explanations offe...
- Smt. Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs The the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3)…Surat16 Aug 2018Dismissed
Also relies on Keval Kuman Jain v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the benefit of telescoping or peak credit could not be allowed for the cash deposits. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, and the exp...
- Bharat Bir Mohindra, Chennai vs ACIT, ChennaiChennai4 Sept 2017Remanded
Also relies on Satya Prasad v. Income Tax Officer and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that while Section 2(22)(e) is applicable, the calculation of accumulated profits and deemed dividend needs to be re-examined. Specifically, it noted that dividends paid by the company should be set off...
- Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs Dina Sudhir Shah, MumbaiMumbai17 Dec 2015Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Raj Kumar and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the transaction was a commercial one related to property purchase and not a loan or advance. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable, and the deemed dividend assessme...
- Dr. L.S. Ravi Prakash, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore28 Oct 2022Remanded
Also relies on Satya Prasad v. Income Tax Officer and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that accumulated profits should be considered only up to the previous year (31.03.2010) and that only loans/advances received during the current assessment year should be considered for deemed dividend,...
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
