VIKRAM SINGH,BALOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BALOTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 522/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 October 2025AY 2017-181 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

3

6.

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.

7.

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.

7.

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.

8.

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:

1.

The Appellant

2.

The Respondent

3.

CIT

4.

The CIT(A)

5.

DR, ITAT, JODHPUR

6.

Guard File आदेशानुसार / By order, सहायक पंजीकार / Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →