ANKUR JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3460/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 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 ruled that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits as accumulated past savings, which had been accepted in principle by the authorities. Consequently, the impugned addition of Rs. 1.58 lakhs was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1.58 lakhs for cash deposits totaling Rs. 2,30,000/- made by the assessee during the demonetization period. This addition was upheld by the CIT(A), leading the assessee to appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization, when the source is explained as accumulated past savings, was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.11.2024Pronounced: 27.11.2024

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Surat’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/106531492(1), dated 31.05.2024, in case no. CIT(A), Ghaziabad/10897/2019-20, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. proceeded ex parte. from a perusal of the case file that the learned Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 1.58 lakhs regarding the assessee’s cash deposits made in the bank account totaling to Rs. 2,30,000/- during the demonetization.

3.

A perusal of the assessment discussion in para 3.2 indicates that the learned Assessing Officer had discussed the assessee’s entire cash deposits to arrive at the impugned addition which stands upheld by the learned CIT(A) in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s foregoing sole substantive ground as well as Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned addition and find no merit to sustain the same. This is for the precise reason that the assessee had duly explained the source of his foregoing cash deposits during demonetization which stood duly accepted in principle but for the addition of Rs. 1.58 lakhs. I hold in this factual backdrop that assessee’s accumulated past saving formed the source of such cash deposit and therefore the impugned addition of Rs. 1.58 lakh is deleted. assessee’s latter appeal is dismissed as a ‘duplicate’ file. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →