Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's total income was determined at Rs. 12,78,820/- against a returned income of Rs. 2,08,822/-, with an addition of Rs. 10,70,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank. The assessee claimed these deposits were loans taken for his father's medical treatment.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 50% of the addition was ad hoc and lacked proper reasoning. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition of Rs. 10,70,100/-, effectively accepting the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 10,70,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank was justified, considering the assessee's explanation of borrowing for his father's medical treatment.
Sections Cited
147, 44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 30/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1072743055(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) In this case assessment order was passed u/s 147 of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.12,78,820/- as against returned income of Rs.2,08,822/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.10,70,000/- was made on account of cash deposited in the bank. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 30/01/2025. Relevant portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
(C) At the time of hearing, learned Departmental Representative relied on order of learned CIT(A). As can be readily seen, the learned CIT(A) deleted 50% of the aforesaid addition of Rs.10,70,000/- and sustained the remaining 50% amounting to Rs.5,35,050/-. The learned CIT(A) has accepted the assessee’s explanation that the assessee, an ex-service man, was not a well placed person economically and it is quite probable that he borrowed money for emergency i.e. for the treatment of illness of his father. However, in a summary and ad hoc manner, without explaining any reason for this, the learned CIT(A) has sustained the 50% of the amount claimed by the assessee to have been received as loan for meeting emergency expenses towards treatment of his father suffering from illness. The amount of Rs.10,70,100/- claimed by the assessee to have been received for treatment of his father suffering from illness is not unreasonably high or excessive amount having regard to the cost of medical treatment in the present day, specially having regard to the circumstances of the assessee.
Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs.5,35,050/-, which the learned CIT(A) had sustained in his impugned appellate order. In effect the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the entire amount of addition of Rs.10,70,100/-.
(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2025)