RAGHVENDRA SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 242/RPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 July 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)14 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1, deleting the addition on cash deposits, finding the invocation of Section 69 to be void ab initio due to incorrect application of law. Grounds No. 2 and 3 were remanded to the AO for factual verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) regarding unexplained cash deposits, denial of exemptions for transport and house rent allowance, disallowance of business loss, and disallowance of deductions under Chapter VI-A. The assessee claimed the cash deposit belonged to a partnership firm and provided documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of cash deposits was justified under Section 69 when documentary evidence was provided, and whether exemptions and deductions were wrongly denied by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 10(14)(ii),Section 10(13A),Section 80C

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, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S. Sharma, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.07.2025Pronounced: 14.07.2025

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 05.02.2025 for the assessment year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.11,59,670/- being

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →