ABHI BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6082/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2025AY 2010-11Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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?

Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 30.10.2025

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →