SANJEEV KUMAR GARG,DADRI vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that while the claimed source was not proven, family savings could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed just and proper.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned unexplained cash credits in savings bank accounts. The assessee claimed the source was advances for land sales that did not materialize.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the genuineness of cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts and the adequacy of explanations provided for their source.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 06.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 29.11.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, 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/250/2024-25/1064429554(1), dated 29.04.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte against him.
Learned Departmental Representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower appellate authorities herein have rightly made the impugned section 68 unexplained cash credits addition representing the taxpayer’s cash deposits in saving bank accounts.
Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR’s case accordingly is that this tribunal ought to confirm the impugned addition since the assessee has all along failed to explain the source of his cash deposits herein. 5. A perusal of the instant case file reveals that the assessee had attributed the source of the impugned cash deposits to the advances received from Sh. Abid and Sh. Alok on 17th and 10th June, 2008 amounting to Rs.6 lakhs and 4 lakhs, respectively in lieu of transferring his lands, whose sale deeds never materialised. The fact, however, remains that even if the said source is rejected, accumulation of family savings etc. could not be per se ruled out keeping in kind the taxpayers’ socio-economic status. I, therefore, deem it appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs.4 lakhs only
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026