MR. SUNIL KANT SHARMA,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI
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 bank records showed the amounts were drawn by cheque in the name of the assessee's mother. Since the sources of the funds were proven to be from the mother, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was liable to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,10,760/- on account of unexplained credit entries in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed these were from his mother for medical, household expenses, and taxes paid on her behalf. The mother had passed away before the assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the credit entries in the assessee's bank account were sufficiently explained by the evidence provided, considering the death of the alleged source of funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. Sushma ChowlaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A)-21, New Delhi dated 09.02.2017.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and circumstances of the case by upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Rs.6,10,760/-.
2. The additions were made on account of unexplained credit entries in the assessee’s HDFC Bank account, disregarding the material evidences produced before the Assessing Officer & CIT(A).”
Addition on account of unexplained credit amounting Rs.6,10,760/-:
During the assessment proceedings, from the bank account, the AO noticed that there were credit entries of Rs.3,32,760/- on 26/07/2012 and Rs.2,78,000/- on Sunil Kant Sharma 22/11/2012 which the assessee was asked to explain the nature & source thereof along with supporting evidence. In response, it was stated that a sum of Rs.3,32,760/- was received by the assessee from his mother Smt. Bala Sharma against medical & household expenses and a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- was received from her mother against taxes paid online for her. On being asked to furnish the confirmation from his mother in support of above contention, the assessee has stated that his mother died in March, 2015 and that the transactions dated 24 & 25 July, 2015 represented taxes paid for her amounting to Rs.3,34,900/-.
Not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.6,10,760/- on account of unexplained credit in the bank account of the assessee.
The relevant para 16 of the assessment order is as under: “Since it was the duty of the assessee to prove the sources of credit entries in the bank account with supporting documentary evidence but the asses see has failed to discharge his onus to provide the same. Hence it is clear that a sum of Rs.6,10,760/- was assessee’s own money earned through undisclosed sources and, therefore, I treat this amount as assessee's own income during the year and the same is added to his total income as income from other sources u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961."
The ld. CIT (A) while confirming the addition held that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to establish the nature and source of impugned credit entries and the assessee has failed to comply in discharging his onus as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sunil Kant Sharma 7. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
We find that from the bank certificate issued by HDFC Bank maintaining the A/c no. 12021930005546 that an amount of Rs.2,78,000/- has been drawn on HDFC Bank by Cheque No. 476749 dated 22.11.2011 and debited in the name of Smt. Bala Sharma. Similarly, an amount of Rs.3,32,760/- has been drawn by Cheque No. 183420, Allahabad Bank on 26.07.2012, the debit party being Smt. Bala Sharma. Since, the sources have been proved and corresponding to the addition made, we hereby hold that the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/04/2020.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026