KIRAN,KARNAL vs. ITO, WARD- 2, KARNAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the peak cash credit calculation by the AO was erroneous and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides correct calculation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to accept the source of cash deposit from the sale of livestock to the extent of Rs. 7.60 lacs.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 29,93,099/- in her savings bank account and explained the source as frequent withdrawals and sale of livestock. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 14,25,630/- by calculating peak cash credit.
What were the issues?
Whether the peak cash credit calculation was correctly made by the AO, and whether the sale of livestock was a valid source of cash deposit.
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. N. K. BILLAIYA
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Karnal dated 01.12.2017 pertaining to A. Y. 2009-10.
The only grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1425630/- made by the Assessing Officer.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.29,93,099/- made in the savings bank account during the year under consideration. In her reply the assessee stated that she is not maintaining any books of accounts and is assessed u/s 44 AF of the Act in respect of her income from running Beauty Parlour. It was explained that the cash deposited in the said savings bank account is out of frequent withdrawals from the same bank and also by the sale of live stock. The explanation did not find any favour with the Assessing Officer who calculated the peak cash credit and made the addition of Rs.14,25,630/-.
The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success.
Before me the counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee had furnished complete details of sale of live stocks. It is the say of the counsel that confirmations were filed from the purchasers and the Assessing Officer himself has made necessary enquiries from them.
The counsel further pointed out that peak cash credit computed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and against the facts of the deposits and withdrawals in the savings bank account. Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.
I have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that there is frequent withdrawals and deposits in the savings bank account, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the deposits made in the savings bank account are out of frequent withdrawals made by the assessee. However, peak cash credit is a reasonable yard stick for making the addition but it appears that the calculation done by the Assessing Officer is not correct. I therefore, restore the issue to this extent to the files of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish the correct calculation of peak cash credit and the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the same and decide the issue afresh.
In so far as the sale of live stock is concerned the documentary evidences brought on record clearly show that the assessee has sold some live stock for a sale consideration of Rs.7.60 lacs. The documentary evidence furnished by the assessee have been verified by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Without assigning any specific reason for not accepting the documentary evidences makes the addition to this extent uncalled for. I therefore direct the Assessing Officer to accept the source of cash deposit out of live stock to the extent of Rs.7.60 lacs. To this extent the assessee gets a relief. The balance addition is set aside to the files of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication as per directions given here in above.
In the result, the appeal is filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2018.
More judgments on Section 44AF
- Kamlesh Puranmal Agrawal, Surat vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), SuratITA 1152/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
- Vinodkumar Ramubhai Patel, Valsad vs Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4, NavsariITA 332/SRT/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2026AY 2010-11
- Tej Pal Singh, Haridwar vs ITO, RoorkeeITA 915/DDN/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
- Vikram Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs ITO, Assessment Unit It Department, MumbaiITA 917/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
- Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), SuratITA 543/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026