NEERAJ RAWAL,B-25, STREET LANE BEHIND MEENAKSHI HOSPITAL, KAUSH vs. ITO WARD 58(3) DELHI, ITO WARD 58(3) VIKAS BHAWAN DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8027/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and on facts by assessing the cash deposits made by the individual/karta in his personal account as income of the assessee/HUF. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the reasons stated in the assessee's petition, citing the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for assessment year 2017-18 against the order passed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The assessee was aggrieved by the lower authorities' action of treating cash deposits of Rs. 12.56 lakhs in the bank account of its karta/individual, Sh. Neeraj Rawal, as income.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made in the personal bank account of the karta/individual can be assessed as income of the assessee/HUF. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 19.01.2026

Date of hearing 19.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2024-25/1067937979(1), dated 23.08.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation petition attributing delay for 92 days to the circumstances beyond its control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/HUF is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating cash deposits of Rs.12.56 lakhs deposited in the bank account of its karta/individual, Sh. Neeraj Rawal. It has further placed on record his bank statement to this effect.

4.

That being the clinching case, the tribunal is of the considered view that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in assessing the assessee/HUF’s cash deposits made by its individual/karta in his personal account. Deleted accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →