IMRAN SIDDIQUI ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2) , MYSORE

ITA 2238/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 March 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had revised his computation treating cash deposits as turnover under Section 44AD. The AO rejected this and treated the entire deposit as unexplained income. The Tribunal found that the AO's findings were not clear regarding the revised computation and the disallowance of expenditure was made on an ad-hoc basis without specific defects being pointed out.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed his return of income declaring ₹8,53,290. During scrutiny, the AO observed cash deposits of ₹28.69 lakh. The assessee initially claimed these were transportation of goods for M/s Hannah Trading Company and later changed the explanation to loans from friends and relatives due to his father's medical expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits of ₹28.69 lakh were unexplained income, and whether the disallowance of ₹1,85,710 for business expenditure was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD,Section 250,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kothari, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Hearing: 24.02.2026Pronounced: 05.03.2026

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Act dated 13.08.2025. 2. The assessee has raised nine grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the same are not reproduced here.

3.

The grounds of appeal are interconnected and relate to the addition made on account of cash deposits amounting to ₹28.69 lakh and the disallowance of ₹1,85,710 claimed as expenditure incurred for business purposes.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individ

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →