DEEKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO (HUF),TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 121/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 July 2025AY 2016-1717 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits from maize trading, the addition should be restricted to the peak credit in the bank account, considering withdrawals as well.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 based on information of substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed these deposits were from the sale of maize, but failed to provide supporting documentation.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account can be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 without considering withdrawals, and if the assessee's explanation for the source of funds is acceptable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 44AD,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench

For Appellant: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.DR

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Deekonda Venkateswara Rao (HUF), D.No.7-24-1, Pathuru, Kode Vari Veedhi, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Tadepalligudem.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →