ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURESHBHAI GAFULBHAI VALIYA, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 671/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 August 20253 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A). The assessee, during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), had provided details related to cash deposits and withdrawals concerning cash collections from customers for embroidery work. The CIT(A) had called for a remand report, which confirmed that the assessee submitted the assessment order, cash book, sample cash sale invoices, bank account statement, and ledger account of customer applications. The AO did not doubt these details in his remand report. Therefore, the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found no discrepancy pointed out by the Revenue regarding these evidences, and thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue did not survive.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee, Sureshbhai Gafulbhai Valiya, an individual, had filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 4,95,850. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny to verify cash deposits and made an addition of Rs. 1,53,91,432 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating it as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who allowed the appeal, deleting the addition. The Revenue is aggrieved by this deletion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,91,343 made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account under Section 68 of the Act, considering the assessee's alleged failure to furnish sufficient documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of cash sales transactions. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,91,343 made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account under Section 68 of the Act, considering the assessee's alleged failure to submit any cogent reason for cash withdrawals and their subsequent deposit back into the bank account. Revenue's Contention: The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition as the assessee failed to provide sufficient documents for cash sales and lacked cogent reasons for cash withdrawals and deposits. Assessee's Contention: The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.R
Hearing: 09.07.2025Pronounced: 25.08.2025

O R D E R

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue is filed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 16.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: 2.

“(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,91,343/- made by AO on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that: (i) The assessee has failed to furnish sufficient documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction of cash sales. (ii) The assessee has failed to submit any cogent reason for cash withdrawals and deposit of the same again in the bank account.

ITO vs. Sureshbhai Gafulbhai Valiya Asst.Year–2017-18 - 2 - (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal.”

3.

The assessee is an individual filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 11.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,95,850/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify cash deposits. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and made addition of Rs. 1,53,91,432/- under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash deposits.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,91,343/- despite the fact that the assesse failed to furnish sufficient documents to establish the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction of the cash sales. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee failed to submit any cogent reason for cash withdrawals and deposit of same in the bank account.

6.

The Ld. AR relied upon the order of CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee during the appellate proceedings have filed the details related to the cash deposits and the cash withdrawals in respect of its cash collection from customers from the embroidery work done by the assessee. The submissions before the CIT(A) is most specifically reproduced in Para 6.2.2 by the CIT(A) of the order dated 16.01.2025. The CIT(A) has called for the remand report and the same is reproduced in Para 6.2.3 of the said order. The said remand report clearly stated that the assessee submitted the copy of assessment order, cash book, the ITO vs. Sureshbhai Gafulbhai Valiya Asst.Year–2017-18 - 3 - sample cash sale invoices as well as the copy of bank account statement alongwith copy of ledger account of customer application. The said details were not doubted by the Assessing Officer in his remand report and therefore, categorically the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. There is no discrepancy pointed out by the Ld. DR in respect of these evidences and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue does not survive.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/08/2025

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →