RAJNISH KUMAR SHARMA,MEERUT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4102/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the impugned bank account was opened in the name of the Unit Run Canteen, a fact that remained unrebutted by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition made in the assessee's hands was wrongly made and deleted the entire addition of Rs.69,42,191/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a retired army officer and officer-in-charge of the Unit Run Canteen (URC), HQ PUPSA, Greater Noida, faced an addition of Rs.69,42,191/- for alleged unexplained cash deposits in a bank account during demonetization. The lower authorities treated these deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE, while the assessee contended the account belonged to the URC.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization in a bank account, claimed to belong to a Unit Run Canteen where the assessee was officer-in-charge, could be treated as the assessee's unexplained income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv
Hearing: 18.12.2025Pronounced: 18.12.2025

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Rajnish Kumar Vs. Assessing Officer, Sharma, Ward-1(2)(2), N-127, Opp. IIMT Engg. Meerut College, Ganga Nagar, Mawana Road, Meerut PAN: AIAPS4355C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. Department by Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.12.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076886547(1), dated 10.06.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating alleged cash deposits in his bank account amounting to Rs.69,42,191/- during demonetization as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 31.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, we notice from a perusal of the case records that the assessee/appellant happens to be retired army officer carrying 30% disability who had been appointed as officer in-charge of the Unit Run Canteen (URC), HQ PUPSA, Greater Noida, in the relevant financial year. The impugned bank account appears to have been opened in the name of above canteen only. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side during the course of hearing before us. We thus hardly see any reason to uphold the impugned addition which has been wrongly made in the assessee’s hands for the sum deposits in the Unit Run Canteen herein. The impugned addition of Rs.69,42,191/- stands deleted in very terms therefore.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →