KSHIRSAGAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash on hand to cover the deposit, supported by the cash book and bank statement. The Tribunal noted the cash book was not doubted and the assessee's books were audited.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a property developer, deposited Rs. 3,51,000 in cash. Initially, the assessee claimed the cash was received for car parking allotment and later returned. The Assessing Officer treated the deposit as unexplained cash credit.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 3,51,000 was an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.03.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2011-12.
The shore facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of development of property. Assessee has furnished the return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 declaring total income as ‘Nil’. During the course of hearing, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) noticed from AIR information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.3,51,000/-. Accordingly, assessee was asked to furnish the source of this cash deposit. The assessee has stated that cash was received on account of allotment of car parking and same was returned back to the party because car parking could not be allotted to that party. The AO observed that assessee did not substantiate his claim because allotment letter of 2 M/s. Kshirsagar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. parking was issued on 20.04.10 but the cash was deposited in January 2011. Therefore, AO treated the cash deposit of Rs.3,51,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee.
Matter carried to Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. A.R. submitted before us that assessee’s books of accounts are duly audited and assessee maintained all books of accounts under section 44AA of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, as per the cash book on hand for the period of 01.04.10 to 31.03.11 the assessee has deposited Rs.3,51,000/- out of available cash of Rs.4,77,635/- as on 01.01.2011. Therefore, the cash deposit is duly explained and the same is available as cash on hand. The assessee has submitted the copy of bank statement for F.Y. 2010-11, copy of the ledger account on cash on hand from page 31 to 41 by way of paper book and pleaded that the addition may be deleted.
On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. submitted that before the AO assessee claimed that he had received the cash against allotment of parking before the parking was not allotted. But before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had taken the contention that the cash deposit was made out of cash in hand available with him. Therefore, assessee is changing the stand before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, assessee could not explain the source of the money deposited in the bank.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that during the course of hearing the assessee has submitted cash on hand book for the period from 01.04.10 to 31.03.11. From the cash on hand it transpires that on 01.01.11 assessee was having opening balance of Rs.4,77,635/-. The assessee on 04.01.11 has 3 M/s. Kshirsagar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. deposited Rs.3,51,000/-. We find that assessee has also submitted the copy of bank statement for the same period. From the above statement and copy of the ledger account on cash in hand it transpires that assessee was having sufficient cash on 01.01.11 i.e. Rs.4,77,635/- out of which assessee claimed that he has deposited Rs.3,51,000/-. We find that assessee has given explanation before the AO that this amount was received on account of allotment of car parking and the same was returned to the party because car parking could not be allotted to that party. The said allotment of car parking is also reflected in the cash on hand but assessee was having cash balance on that day. Therefore, we are of the view that no addition can be made. During the course of hearing, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the statement made by the assessee before the AO and Ld. CIT(A), but he has not doubted the genuineness of the cash book as the cash on hand book was supported by the bank statement. Assessee’s books of accounts are audited under section 44AB of the Act and assessee is a private limited company. Therefore we delete the same.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2017.
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 →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026