Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in tour and travel, organized Umrah tours and received cash deposits from pilgrims, which were deposited into a bank account. For AY 2017-18, during scrutiny for demonetization cash deposits, the AO made an addition of ₹73,00,000/- under Section 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming an addition of ₹13,00,000/-.
Held
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits pertained to the assessee's business of arranging air tickets and foreign exchange, with similar deposits in previous years. It noted that the assessee provided customer details and there was no contrary evidence, concluding that no addition was warranted.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.13,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash deposits.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.06.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“CIT(A)” in short), passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The solitary grievance of the assessee is as follows:
“That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs.13,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of tour and travel. During the year under consideration, the assessee had organized Umrah tours to Macca and Madina for various pilgrims. The assessee received cash from the pilgrims, which was deposited into his bank account. Out of such deposits, payments were made to the Money Exchanger for foreign currency and for the purchase of air tickets. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.09.2017, declaring total income of ₹9,69,831/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the purpose of verifying “cash deposits during the demonetization period.” Accordingly, statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act were issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee furnished replies along with supporting details. However, after considering the submissions, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and made an addition of ₹73,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act. Consequently, the total assessed income was determined at ₹82,69,831/- as against the returned income of ₹9,69,831/-.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows:
“…6.1 The facts relating to the present appeal, are that the appellant had filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 31.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.9,69,831/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS to verify "cash deposit during demonetization period". Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was issued to the appellant. In compliance to theses notices assessee has submitted reply. Considering the submission filled by the assessee the order was passed by the AO, u/s 143(3) and addition of Rs. 73,00,000/- was made on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A. Resultantly, the income assessed in the impugned order is Rs. 82,69,831/-. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee is in present appeal.
6.2 Ground No. 1& 2: these grounds relates to addition of Rs.73,00,000/- on account of cash deposit during demonetization. The assessee has submitted that these receipts relates to his business as proprietor of M/s Al-Amin tours and travels. The appellant has submitted that these amounts relates to his business of arranging air tickets and foreign currency from various tourists travelling to Saudi Arabia for Umrah. However, AO has recorded that complete details of these customers were not provided at the time of scrutiny proceedings. Before the AO and me assessee has submitted that there have been similar cash deposit in earlier years too. Though the assessee has provided names and passport number of the customers, the details are not readily verifiable. However, keeping in mind the deposits in earlier years and there having been no change in business or any other reason for sharp increasing cash deposit, the quantum of deposit is higher comparative to other years. Therefore, in interest of justice and normal plausibility of business cash deposit at Rs.60,00,000/- are considered reasonable in this line of business and balance amount Rs. 13,00,000/- is confirmed in hands of the appellant. Therefore, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on these grounds…”
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the amounts of cash deposits pertain to the business of the assessee of arranging air tickets and foreign exchange for tourists travelling abroad. There have been similar cash deposits in the earlier years too as per the Assessing Officer himself. The Assessing Officer has accepted that the assessee has provided names and passport numbers of the customers, but still went on making the additions without giving anything contrary on record - the same have been part of the paper-book before us. Similarly, the details of the purchase of the foreign exchange from Weizmans Forex have been submitted by the assessee and are on record. Hence, keeping in view all the tangible evidences, we hold that no addition is called for in the instant case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.10.2025.