SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR UMA SHARMA,SHIMLA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash balances as per its cash book, and the sales turnover was accepted. The estimation of average sales was found to be arbitrary, and since the overall sales turnover was not disturbed, the additions made by the AO lacked basis.
What were the facts?
The assessee, running a petrol pump, deposited a significant amount of cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 22 Lacs as unexplained cash credit, considering the cash-in-hand and sales on November 11, 2016, to be excessive.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 22 Lacs as unexplained cash credit is justified, considering the assessee's cash book and sales turnover during the demonetization period.
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 LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Late Shri Surender Kumar Sharma ACIT Through L/H Smt. Uma Sharma The Mall बनाम/ HS filling Station Shimla - 172001 Vs. Khaneri, Rampur Bushahr Shimla - 172001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AGXPS-4748-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Rohit Jain (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.
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 30-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 04-12-2019. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
The deceased assessee e-filed its return of income for Rs.56.85 Lacs which was subjected to scrutiny to verify cash deposit during demonetization period. The assessee was running a petrol pump at Khaneri, Rampur, Distt. Shimla. In support of deposits, the assessee furnished audit report, financial statements, daily cash book, ledger accounts etc. and various other information / documents. It was noted by Ld. AO that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.392.86 Lacs between 10-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 out of which an amount of Rs.199.32 Lacs was deposited in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs). The assessee stated that it had cash-in-hand as on 11-11-2016 for Rs.36 Lacs which was sourced to make deposits in the bank accounts. The Ld. AO further noted that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.10.61 Lacs on 08-11-2016 and another Rs.14.49 Lacs as on 07-11-2016 which would show that sales for 06-11-2016, 07-11-2016 and part sales of 08-11-2016 were deposited. Considering the earlier cash balances, cash-in-hand for Rs.46.50 Lacs as on 10-11-2016 was accepted. The average sales on 11-11-2016 could be accepted for Rs.14 Lacs whereas the assessee deposited cash of Rs.36 Lacs on 11-11-2016 which was not tenable and held to be excessive. Accordingly, the differential of the two i.e., Rs.22 Lacs was added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and the assessment was finalized. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Upon perusal of factual matrix, the undisputed fact that emerges is that the assessee has sufficient cash balances as per his cash book whenever the impugned deposits have been made. The sales turnover has been accepted by Ld. AO. The books have not been rejected and no deficiency has been pointed out in the cash book of the assessee. The business model of the assessee is such that is carries out substantial sales in cash. The estimation of average sales on 11-11- 2016 is quite arbitrary and without any basis whereas the overall sales turnover has not been disturbed by Ld. AO. On these facts, the impugned additions do not have any legs to stand. By deleting the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee.
The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 21-05-2025.
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 →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026