INDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), RISHI NAGAR LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 65/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cash in hand, supported by the Cash Flow Statement and agricultural income. The lower authorities' addition was not justified as the AR could not rebut the factual aspect.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- made by the AO, treating cash deposits during demonetization as income from unexplained sources. The assessee, an agriculturist, claimed to have sufficient cash in hand from agricultural produce sales and other sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the agriculturist assessee during the demonetization period were income from unexplained sources, or if the assessee had sufficient cash in hand to explain these deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30-11-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi[hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The Assessee in this appeal has agitated against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) of Rs. 21,00,000/- by treating the cash deposits made

1.

65-Chd-2025 Inder Singh Ludhiana 2 by the Assessee in the bank account during the demonetization period as income of the Assessee from unexplained sources.

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has invited my attention to the Cash Flow Statement, copy of which has been placed at Page 15 of the Paper Book. Ld. counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the Assessee had sufficient cash in hand at the time of announcement of demonetization scheme. He has further explained that the Assessee was an agriculturist. As per ‘J’ Forms, the Assessee had sold his agricultural produce and received Rs.3,14,500/- on 22.04.2016 and Rs. 3,02,600/- on 15.5.2016. He has further submitted that the Assessee was also having cash in hand. The Assessee had deposited Rs. 10,00,000/-in his bank account on 04.06.2016. The Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 23,00,000/ from his bank account on 15.06.2016, The Assessee had further received agricultural income as mentioned in ‘J’ Form of Rs. 6,09,519/- on 25.10.2016 and Rs. 4,48,176/- on 03.11.2016.The Assessee had deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in his bank account on 13.11.2016 and further Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.11.2016 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 22.11.2016. The Ld. counsel has demonstrated from the Cash Flow Statement that the Assessee had sufficient cash in hand. Due to announcement of demonetization scheme, the 65-Chd-2025 Inder Singh Ludhiana 3 amount in specified bank notes was required to be deposited in the bank account.

4.

Ld. D.R. could not rebut the above-said factual aspect of the case, I therefore, do not find any justification on the part of lower authorities in confirming the impugned addition, and the same is ordered to be deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →