BIMLESH GOYAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 95,000/- for unexplained cash deposits, finding sufficient evidence of cash in hand from the preceding year. The addition for lower withdrawals was restricted to Rs. 10,000/-.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer added cash deposits of Rs. 95,000/- and lower withdrawals of Rs. 48,480/- to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits in a savings bank account are unexplained and whether the addition for lower withdrawals was correctly calculated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM]
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 falls into question the CIT(A)-14, Kolkata’s order dated 17.04.2018 passed in case no. 73/CIT(A)-14/Wd-47(1)/2016-17 upholding the Assessing Officer’s action adding cash deposits in savings bank account and lower drawings of Rs. 95,000/- and Rs. 48,480/-; respectively, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
I come to former issue of unexplained cash deposits that amounting to Rs. 95,000/-. Both the lower authorities have held the assessee not to have explained source thereof in assessment as well as lower appellate proceedings. I find that the assessee’s detailed evidence on record as per his profit and loss account at page 8 of the paper book
Bimlesh Goyal A.Yr. 2014-15 pertaining to preceding assessment year indicates cash in hand of Rs. 4,24,438/- as on 31.03.2013. This clinching figure has gone un resulted from Revenue’s side. I delete the impugned addition of Rs. 95,000/- made by both the lower authorities u/s 68 therefore.
Coming to latter issue of lower withdrawals of Rs. 48,480/-, the assessee is fair enough in not disputing correctness thereof in principle. His only case is that the both the lower authorities have made the impugned addition on higher side. I therefore partly accept assessee’s arguments to restrict the impugned addition to a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. Assessee gets part relief to the above extent.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Court on 28.09.2018
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 →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026