RAJESH SINGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's salary income from the same employer was accepted in previous assessment years. It held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the explanation properly and that the non-disclosure of salary in the ITR for the current year, when consistency in facts was demonstrated, was not sufficient to disbelieve the explanation. Consequently, the addition made u/s 68 could not be sustained.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- for unexplained cash credit in the assessee's bank account, comprising Rs. 1,00,000/- bank deposit and Rs. 25,000/- cash deposit, as the assessee failed to respond to a notice u/s 142(1). Before the CIT(A), the assessee explained Rs. 1,00,000/- as salary and Rs. 25,000/- from past savings, but the CIT(A) sustained the addition citing lack of evidence and non-disclosure in the ITR.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified, given the assessee's explanation of salary income and past savings, and the consistent acceptance of salary income in prior assessment years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 153D,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 139,Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.03.2023 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.10775/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2018-19 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 26.04.2021 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
On hearing both the sides, we find that the AO has primarily drawn conclusion of unexplained cash credit as the assessee had failed to respond to notice u/s 142(1)
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.
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 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
