HARDIK JAGDISHKUMAR THAKKAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were made throughout the year, reflecting the regular business of the assessee. Since the deposits were part of the regular trading business and were regularly transferred to suppliers/dealers, no addition for unexplained money was warranted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's bank account showed cash deposits of Rs. 31,02,330/- which the Revenue treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, engaged in the business of namkeen and other small products, contended that these deposits were from regular trading business activities.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, claimed to be from regular business activities, constitute unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Hardik Jagdishkumar Thakkar, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shivaji Park Society, Ward-3, Dhanera, Palanpur. Banaksantha-385310. [PAN :AGYPT5046 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jimi Patel, AR Respondent by: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18 .07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) /National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 31,02,330/- made u/s 69A of the Act being allege unexplained money without appreciating facts and law of the case properly.
Without prejudice to above, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and facts in taxing the income at special rate mentioned in Section 115BBE of the Act without appreciating that amendment made in Section 115BBE will Hardik J Thakkar Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– be applicable from AY 2018-19 onwards and not applicable for AY 2017-18 which is assessment year under question. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal
at the time of hearing, if need arise.
3. The addition of Rs.31,02,330/- has been made on account of the cash deposits found in the bank account of the assessee. The revenue alleged that the assessee could not prove the details of the sources of cash deposited in the bank account. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is in the business of namkeen and other small products on a retail as well as whole basis, and the assessee had produced bank statement reflecting the cash deposits from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. There have been cash deposits in the bank account throughout the year, which reflects the regular business of the assessee. The cash deposits have been transferred to suppliers/dealers of namkeen and other products at regular intervals, as evident from the bank statement. Since, the cash deposits are out of the regular trading business of namkeen and other products, we hold no addition is called for on account of unexplained money.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
