MUKESH KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-2(4), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5441/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO could not summarily reject the assessee's explanation reconciling cash deposits with business sales. However, the assessee had not fully proved the source of cash deposits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the business of running cabs, filed a return for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 40,86,371 on account of cash deposits. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 33,65,810 while granting relief of Rs. 7,20,560.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits are justified, and if not, what should be the quantum of addition.

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, ‘E’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Goel, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 19.01.2026

ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

This appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 26.09.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 12.12.2019 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Brief facts are that the appellant assessee is an individual assessee, and was in the business of running of cabs. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 had been already filed on 18.04.2013 declaring income of Rs.9,20,934/- as assessee was carrying on business of running of cabs on hire/contract basis during the year under consideration. The learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceeding determining the total income at Rs.49,07,310/- under normal provisions of the Act after making the additions on account of the addition amounting to Rs.40,86,371/- on account of cash deposits of Rs.40,86,371/- in bank account maintained by the assessee. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee and confirmed addition to the extent of Rs.33,65,810/-, while giving relief of Rs.7,20,560/-.

3.

Per Contra, the ld. DR forcefully argued in favour of the orders of the lower authorities.

4.

We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the assessee’s financials so as to allude that the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is unwarranted. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the ld. AO have nowhere specifically rebutted all these supporting documents in the assessment proceedings. The fact however remaining, that the assessee has not fully proved the source of improvement of cash deposit despite the fact that it is stated to be engaged in the business of running of cabs on hire/contract basis. Be that as it

Page 2 of 4 may, we are of the considered view that the learned AO could not have summarily rejected the assessee’s foregoing explanation, reconciling on its cash deposits to regular business sales, it is deemed appropriate that lumpsum addition of only Rs.11 lakhs in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →