RAJENDER SINGH,JHAJJAR vs. ITO, WARD - 5 , ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3737/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 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 noted that the assessee already had a debit balance of the same amount in the KCC account. It held that the impugned cash deposits should be treated as KCC loan amounts, and therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities under sections 68/69 read with 115BBE was not sustainable in law and was consequently deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 12,94,200/- made by lower authorities under sections 68/69 read with 115BBE, representing cash deposits in the assessee's KCC account for the assessment year 2017-18. This appeal arose from proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made into a KCC account, where a prior debit balance of the same amount existed, could be treated as unexplained cash credits/investments under sections 68/69 read with 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68,Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI (SMC

Hearing: 23.12.2024Pronounced: 23.12.2024

Date of hearing 23.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2024 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/250/2024-25/1066022910(1) dated 25.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 68/69 read with sec.

115BBE for addition of Rs.12,94,200/- representing the assessee’s cash deposits made in his KCC account.

4.

The clinching fact which emerges during the course of hearing is that the assessee herein was already having a debit balance of the very amount in his KCC account, which was deposited in the relevant previous year. This tribunal is of the considered view that in the given facts of the case, impugned cash deposits would be very well held to be KCC loan amount itself and therefore, the addition made herein is not sustainable in law which stands deleted in very terms.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →