ARUN PANWAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR
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 held that the assessee made cash withdrawals of Rs. 31 Lacs from their father's transferred funds. It was presumed that the same amount was re-deposited due to demonetization, and thus the addition was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 30.90 Lacs in their bank account, which was added to their income by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed the funds originated from a refund after a land deal fell through, with the initial withdrawal being for token money paid for the plot. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of cash deposits made by the assessee, claimed to be from a refund after a failed land deal, is sustainable 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, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Arun Panwar ITO Ward -1 बनाम/ Vs. H No 76 A Chopra Garden Model Town Haryana. 135001 Yamunanagar-605602 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. CEHPS-3171-M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Arvind Kumar (CA)(Virtual Mode)– Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 09-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 14-01-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 144 of the Act on 15-10-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of cash deposit for Rs.30.90 Lacs u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
Upon perusal of assessee’s bank account as maintained with SBI, Faridabad, it was noted by Ld. AO that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.30.90 Lacs between 13-11-2016 to 28-11-2016. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to explain the sources thereof. The assessee stated that certain amount was received through cheque from his father in his HDFC Bank Account. Since he was looking to purchase a plot in Faridabad, he withdrew the money on 08-04-2015 and gave token money to the seller. Due to some issues, the deal did not fructify and the refund was received from the seller during October, 2016 which was re-deposited in the said bank account. However, Ld. AO rejected the same for want of documentary evidences and added the deposits u/s 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The undisputed fact that emerges is that the assessee has received amount of Rs.30 Lacs from his father through banking channels during September, 2014. The amount of Rs.31 Lacs was withdrawn on 08-04-2015 and it is stated to be used to carry out certain land deal. However, the deal did not fructify and the assessee received the refund from the seller. The said refund was re-deposited in assessee’s bank account between 13-11-2016 to 28-11-2016. There is no finding of fact by Ld. AO that the cash was utilized by the assessee elsewhere. Therefore, the source of the deposits has to be accepted on the logic that even if it is presumed that no such advance was given by the assessee as no document has been furnished to that effect, the fact remain that the assessee has made cash withdrawals of Rs.31 Lacs on 08-04-2015 which has ultimately been sourced from amount transferred by assessee’s father to the assessee through banking channels. The presumption would arise in assessee’s favor that the same amount was re-deposited by the assessee owing to demonetization. Therefore, we delete the impugned addition. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.
The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 15/09/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 15/09/2025 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT CHANDIGARH
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 →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
