JAGDISH PRASAD VIJAY,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(4), RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 62/RAN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the deposit of ₹14.95 lacs was not related to SBN notes but were cash deposits from sale proceeds and collections from debtors. The assessee's cash-in-hand extract supported adequate funds for the deposit. The Tribunal found that the source of the deposit was explained.

What were the facts?

The assessee, running a grocery shop, deposited ₹14.95 lacs in their bank account during the demonetization period. The assessee claimed this was from sale proceeds, debtors encashment, and earlier withdrawals. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this deposit as unexplained income, while the CIT(A) granted a partial relief.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit of ₹14.95 lacs made during the demonetization period is to be treated as unexplained income of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, RANCHI

For Appellant: Shri Amresh Kumar Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri Khub Ch. Pandaya, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.04.2025Pronounced: 28.04.2025

O R D E R PER BENCH:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] in DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049067198(1) dated 24.01.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

Shri Amresh Kumar Jain, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khub Ch. Pandaya, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is running a grocery shop and having a turnover of ₹20 lacs. It was submitted that the assessee had deposited ₹14.95 lacs in the bank account of the assessee during the demonetization period. It was submitted that this was out of the debtors encashment and withdrawals from the bank on earlier days.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2025.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →