KULDEEP SINGH,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER, CIVIC CENTRE -DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8414/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2026AY 2017-2018Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- represented the assessee's withdrawal from his GPF account or his past accumulated savings. Therefore, treating the cash as unexplained was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a sub-inspector with Delhi Police, had a cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/-. This sum was withdrawn from his GPF account in September 2016. The lower authorities treated this cash deposit as unexplained in the assessee's hands.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- withdrawn from GPF account or past savings can be treated as unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080781617(1) dated 16.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the sole substantive issue of addition of cash deposits of Rs.10,00,000/- treated as unexplained in the assessee’s hands; in assessment order dated 12.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, it emerges from a perusal of the case records that he is a sub-inspector employed with Delhi Police who had withdrawn the very sum from his GPF

4.

That being the clinching factual position, the necessary inference which would arise is that the impugned sum Rs.10,00,000/- represents the assessee’s cash withdrawal from his GPF account or his past accumulated savings keeping in mind his socio economic status; as the case may be. Both the learned lower authorities impugned action treating the above stated cash of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained in his hands is hereby deleted in very terms.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →