Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC that treated cash deposits of Rs.32.20 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A. The assessee argued these deposits were from prior cash withdrawals from their bank accounts.
Held
The Tribunal found some merit in the assessee's claim regarding previous withdrawals. In the interest of justice, it reduced the addition to Rs.2.20 lakhs, granting relief of Rs.30 lakhs to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits totaling Rs.32.20 lakhs were sufficiently explained by the assessee's prior cash withdrawals.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI
BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.154/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23
Sh. Pawan Kumar Laur, | Vs. | Income Tax Officer, B-706, ITBP Society, Sector | Ward-2(3)(2), PIE -1, Greater Noida, | Bulandshahar, Gautam Buddha Nagar, | Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh PAN: AAPPL9503Q (Appellant) | (Respondent)
Assessee by | Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain, CA Sh. Samayak Jain, Adv. Department by | Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing | 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement | 09.02.2026
ORDER
This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2022-23, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the "CIT(A)/NFAC"], Delhi's DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083072449(1), dated 27.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities' respective assessment and lower appellate discussion/findings dated 06.03.2024 and 27.11.2025 have held the assessee's cash deposits in the relevant previous year to the tune of Rs.32.20 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A of the Act which forms the sole substantive issue of adjudication in the instant appeal. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. Learned counsel has invited the tribunal's attention to the assessee's twin bank accounts cash flows wherein he is stated to have withdrawn Rs.38.25 lakhs in FY 2020-21 from SBI bank account and again Rs.8.85 lakhs in the relevant previous year. His case therefore is that the impugned cash deposits of Rs.32.20 lakhs represent his previous cash withdrawals only which have not been successfully proved to the entire satisfaction of both the lower authorities.
Be that as it may, this tribunal sees only a part merit in the assessee's case going by his previous withdrawals and his impugned cash deposits. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2.20 lakhs in the hands of the assessee is deemed just and proper with a
rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.30 lakhs in other words.
This assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open courton9th February, 2026
Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 25th February, 2026.
RK/-
Copy forwarded to:
- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi