BRAHAM PRAKASH,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1, HARYANA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for cash receipts and substantiate the source of cash deposits. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 19,78,500/- in his savings bank account and Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash, and made credit card payments of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The assessee did not file a return of income, and the source of these deposits and payments remained unexplained. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,44,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits is justified. Whether the assessee has adequately substantiated the source of cash deposits and credit card payments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17/01/2019 passed by CIT(A)- Rohtak, for Assessment Year 2009-10.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “1. The assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law and fact for want of jurisdiction under facts and circumstances of the appeal.
2. The appellant humbly reiterates all the facts and grounds of appeal raised before the Ld CIT (Appeals). The CIT(A) has blindly confirmed the Assessment Order.
3. The CIT (A) has committed a mistake on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provision and scheme of the Act. The CIT (A) has not considered legal and factually that the reasons recorded u/s 148 has no relevancy with material available on the record. The reasons recorded under Sec 148 are different from material available on record. There is no vital link between reasons and evidence.
4. The CIT (A) has committed a mistake by treating the business gross receipts as appellant's income. It is contrary to provisions and scheme of the Act regarding assessing income from business.
5. That CIT (A) has committed a mistake in respect of peak cash balance theory under the facts and circumstances of the appeal. The peak cash balance theory has no application in the present appeal. That AO and CIT(A) has not given due weight to the cash flow submitted before them.
6. That it is well known and standard practice of the income tax department (supported by CBDT Circulars) the Department Officers are not supposed to act as Executive or Judicial Official only but to act as both. That they are supposed to help and inform the taxpayer about their rights and liabilities well within in advance. They should not take disadvantages of the assessee. That all grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
3. As per information available on record, the assessee made deposit of cash amounting to Rs 2,00,000/- and made payments through credit card amounting to Rs 4,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y. 2009- 10. Assessee has not filed return of income. Therefore, source of deposit of cash made in bank and payment made through credit card remained unexplained. During the assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee had deposited Rs. 19,78,500/- in his saving bank account. As he could not substantiate the source of cash deposit, an addition of Rs 6,44,500/- is made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no adjournment application on behalf of the assessee. The notice has been served to the assessee. Therefore, we are taking up the submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A) despite giving proper opportunity but submitted the reply upon which the CIT(A) has taken cognizance and held that there is no documentary evidence from 18 parties in respect of cash receipts given by the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) has given the detailed reason while confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 04TH Day of May, 2020.
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. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
