Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 2,31,00,000 made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee company deposited this cash into its bank account during the demonetization period, claiming it as sale proceeds from sales made on November 8, 2016. The Assessing Officer (AO) found it improbable that such a large sum could be generated from sales within 4 hours after the demonetization announcement.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided detailed findings on the issue. The Revenue failed to rebut the findings of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the deletion of addition made under section 68 on account of cash deposits during demonetization was justified.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Date of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
Appeal in this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Center, New Delhi, against the assessment order dated 29.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under:-
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,31,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT, Act, without appreciation the finding of the AO as assessee failed to produce the supporting documents in support of its claim for cash deposits during demonetization period during assessment proceedings. 3. Brief facts of the case as given in the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:-
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company filed its return of income for the assessment year under reference declaring total income of Rs.15,13,486/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 21.09.2018 and duly served upon the assessee through ITBA portal as well as through speed post. Statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was also served upon the assessee through email. Immediately after the announcement of scheme of demonetization on 08.11.2016 at 08:00 PM by the Prime Minister of India, the appellant company had deposited cash amounting to Rs.2,31,00,000/- into its bank account number 35748542648 maintained with State Bank of India. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as ‘AO’) asked the appellant to explain source of cash deposited by the assessee company into its bank account during the period of demonetization along with certain other queries related to the issue of cash deposited by the assessee company in its bank account. In response, the appellant has explained that the source of cash deposited was cash in hand on 09.11.2016. It is the stand of the assessee company that cash, amounting to Rs.2,31,00,000/-, deposited by it into bank account maintained with State Bank of India represents its sale proceeds. It is also explained with the help of cash book for the period 08.11.2016 to 29.12.2016 that the assessee company had made a total cash sales of Rs.2,30,94,761/- on 08.11.2016 itself. The AO did not accept the explanation provided by the appellant holding that it is not practically possible to make sale of Rs. 2,30,94,761/- within time period of 4 hours after declaration of demonetization at 8:00 PM on 08.11.2016. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the impugned assessment order the appellant is in present appeal.
Per Contra, ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has given very details finding on this issue. During proceedings Page 2 of 3 before us, the Revenue could not rebut the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th February, 2026.