ABHI BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the source of funds, acknowledging the family's socio-economic status. However, it held that a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be just and proper, without it being treated as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an assessment order where cash deposits of Rs. 8,00,000/- were treated as unexplained under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee claimed the deposits were from the accumulated savings of his parents and grandparents.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits are unexplained under Section 68 of the Act, and if so, the appropriate addition to be made.
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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deepak Mehta, Vs Income Tax Officer, 77-B, IFFCO Road, Sector-18, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122015 Gurgaon-122015 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AMTPM1789P Assessee by: Sh. Deepak Mehta (Assessee) Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079147594(1) dated 31.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant Sh. Deepak Mehta; who is present in person, is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits of Rs.8,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act, in assessment order dated 31.03.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Ranjana Jatwani 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee himself vehemently contents that he had very well explained the source of the impugned cash deposits as his parents and grand- parents past accumulated savings which has been wrongly rejected in both the lower proceedings. The Revenue could hardly dispute that keeping in mind the assessee’s and his family’s socio economic status wherein he is stated to be assessed at the maximum marginal rate all along, such past accumulated savings could not be altogether denied. The fact however remains that it was the assessee’s onus only to plead and prove the source of the impugned cash deposits by filing his cogent supportive evidence before both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.7,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
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 →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026