GAJENDRA MOHANTY,MALKANGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 160/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was no justification for treating only the demonetization period deposits as unexplained income while treating other deposits as business receipts. For AY 2017-18, the entire bank deposits were treated as turnover with an 8% profit rate. For AY 2018-19, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited cash during the demonetization period and did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a portion of these deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A and estimated profit on the remaining amount. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization can be treated as unexplained income when other deposits in the same year are treated as business turnover. Whether the profit estimation rate is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 44AD,Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, CUTTACK BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order : 04-June-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 dated 05.02.2025, which have been passed against the “1. That the order of the LC IT(Appeals) is unjust and not in reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the estimation of income @8% is unjust when the appellant has maintained the books of account.

3.

We will first take up the appeal in AY 2017-18. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank account during the period of demonetisation i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in his bank account with the State Bank of India, Balimela and had not filed the return of income. The assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 21,08,500/- under section 69A and Rs.3,63,604/- as business profits after applying the profit rate of 8% on the balance amount. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 05.02.2025 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined.

5.

Ground nos. 1 and 7 being general in nature do not require any separate adjudication.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →