MITHU PAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1768/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 March 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposits in her bank accounts. Possession of cash is considered evidence of ownership, and the assessee did not provide a cogent explanation to prove otherwise.

What were the facts?

The assessee had large cash deposits totaling Rs. 2,33,12,575/- in her bank accounts. The Assessing Officer added this amount as deemed income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to explain the source of these deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash deposits as deemed income under Section 69A is justified when the assessee claims not to be the owner but fails to provide satisfactory evidence or explanation for the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: March 5th, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 18.06.2024, Dated: 05.03.2025 Bidhan (P.S.)

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →