DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), DELHI vs. PASHUPATI ROAD CARRIER PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 2490/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits with audited books of account and bank statements, which were reflected in the company's financial statements.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in road transport, deposited Rs. 1,08,97,000 in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under Section 68 as the explanation for the cash deposit was deemed unsatisfactory.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits during demonetization, and if the assessee provided a reasonable explanation for the same.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 115JB,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: CA & Sh. Manish Upneja
Hearing: 24.02.2026

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM :

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12.2.2025 for AY 2017-18. Assessment in this case was framed by the DCIT/ACIT, Circle 19(2), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. The solitary ground raised by the Revenue reads as under:- “Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,08,97,000/- u/s. 68 on account of cash deposited during demonetization period without appreciating the findings of the AO as assessee failed to file any reasonable e

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →