GEETIKA SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-32(4), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
While a prima facie presumption arose in favor of the assessee that the withdrawn cash might not have been used, the assessee failed to discharge her onus to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. Thus, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was made without treating it as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was filed against the order treating cash deposits of Rs.12,40,000/- as unexplained cash credits. The assessee had withdrawn Rs.14,00,000/- between June 2008 and February 2009, which were re-deposited in AY 2011-12.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits re-deposited in AY 2011-12, which were withdrawn earlier by the assessee, can be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078363939(1) dated 10.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties, it is noticed that both the learned lower authorities respective findings have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12,40,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68; in assessment order dated 19.12.2018 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Geetika Singh 4. That being the case, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to the assessment discussion at page 2 in para 4 that the assessee had withdrawn a total amount of Rs.14,00,000/- right from June 2008 upto February 2009 on various instances which stood re-deposited in the impugned assessment year 2011-12 forming subject matter of adjudication. He could hardly dispute that although a necessary prima facie presumption indeed arise in her favour that the said entire cash withdrawn could not be used, but, at the same time, she has failed to discharge her onus to the entire satisfaction of both the lower authorities as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.11,40,000/- in other words.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026