VIKRAM SINGH,BALOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BALOTRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that if non-SBN deposits of the same nature were accepted as trade receipts, there was no justification to treat SBN deposits as unexplained, especially with supporting evidence. However, considering the circumstances and to balance equities, a part of the addition was sustained.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in cloth trading, declared an income of Rs.10,03,440/-. The assessment was completed at Rs.25,88,440/-, adding Rs.15,85,000/- on account of cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during demonetisation. The assessee claimed these were trade receipts supported by audited books and invoices.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits made in SBNs during demonetisation, supported by evidence of trade receipts, can be treated as unexplained money.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
3
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that the notification of 08.11.2016 prohibited the acceptance of SBNs post demonetisation and, therefore, even if the deposits were related to trade, they were not legally permissible. The Department contended that such deposits clearly fell within the ambit of unexplained money under section 69A and the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) deserved to be upheld.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee had produced documentary evidence including the names of the persons who deposited the money, the transport receipts showing the movement of cloth material to West Bengal and the corresponding sales invoices. These documents demonstrate that the deposits in the bank account of the assessee were directly relatable to the business transactions of sale of cloth, which were duly recorded in the books of account. The only basis for sustaining the addition was that the deposits were made in SBNs after the date of demonetisation. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that when the non-SBN deposits of the same nature were accepted as trade receipts, of the same parties, there was no justification to treat deposits in SBNs as unexplained, particularly when supported by cogent evidence.
1 At the same time, keeping in mind the peculiar circumstances surrounding demonetisation and to balance the equities, we consider it reasonable to sustain a part of the addition to address possible discrepancies or unverifiable aspects of the evidence. We accordingly sustain an addition of Rs.3,00,000/- and direct deletion of the balance addition of Rs.12,85,000/-. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Jodhpur, where in identical facts it was held that trade receipts duly recorded in the books cannot be taxed as unexplained money merely because they were received in SBNs during demonetisation.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The addition is restricted to Rs.3,00,000/- and the balance stands deleted. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/10/2025) (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER AG Copy of the order forwarded to:
The Appellant
The Respondent
CIT
The CIT(A)
DR, ITAT, JODHPUR
Guard File आदेशानुसार / By order, सहायक पंजीकार / Assistant Registrar
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026