ANANT KISHORE KHARE,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW
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 the explanation tendered by the assessee regarding the cash deposit was satisfactory. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a salaried employee, filed his return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 11,68,500/- on account of unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on the ground of limitation.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained money was justified, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 20/06/2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1077283177(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 24/08/2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,99,650/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 01/10/2019 under section 143(3) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,68,150/- and made addition of Rs.11,68,500/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the I. T. Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation refusing to condone delay in filing of appeal. On perusal of records, we find that this was a fit case to condone delay by learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (C) During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, following papers were filed from the assessee’s side:
(C.1) At the time of hearing in ITAT, the assessee attended in person. Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate: provided pro-bono services to the appellant. The assessee is a salaried employee with annual salary of Rs.1,44,000/-. It was explained from his side, that the joint property was sold in two parts. The entire joint property was not sold in one go; but part of property was sold earlier, and part of it was sold later. Further, it was submitted from the assessee’s side that the sale consideration was received partly in cash and partly in cheque. The aforesaid amount of Rs.11,68,500/- received by him in cash, was from out of the assessee’s share in the sale consideration received; and that the cash was kept in hand at home, due to medical emergency and for meeting any unforeseen situation in family; which was deposited in bank as and when it became available for deposit in the bank, after retaining expected requirement for the medical situation in family. It was submitted from the assessee’s side that in view of the above; the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by learned CIT(A) should be deleted. Learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below.
(D) Both sides were heard. Materials on record were perused. The explanation tendered by the assessee before the ITAT is satisfactory. The order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs.11,68,500/-. (E) In the result, the appeal is allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 09/12/2025)
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 →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026