SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO WARD-2(5), MAINPURI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared other incomes as business income and had provided an affidavit and ledger extract of agricultural receipts. Considering the nature of the business and the absence of contrary evidence, the assessee's explanation was accepted. Since the assessee had already shown presumptive income under section 44AD, the separate addition of Rs. 11 Lacs was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 11 Lacs confirmed by the CIT(A), which originated from an assessment framed by the AO. The addition was made because the AO noted discrepancies in the assessee's income returns and the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for cash deposits of Rs. 11 Lacs.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 11 Lacs for unexplained cash deposits in the bank account is justified when the assessee has provided an affidavit and declared presumptive income under section 44AD.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 27-10- 2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 27-12-2014. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.11 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee deposits cash of Rs.11 Lacs in its bank account. It was stated by the assessee that was engaged in selling vegetables. However, Ld. AO noted discrepancies in original return of income filed on 31-03-2012 and revised return of income filed during reassessment proceedings. The assessee was required to prove business activities and the assessee filed affidavit on 16-10-2018 in support of its contentions. However, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation as forthcoming from the assessee, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.11 Lacs and also made another addition of Rs.26.18 Lacs which represent balance in proprietor’s capital account since no business income was shown by the assessee. During first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanation for Rs.26.18 Lacs and deleted this addition but sustained another addition of Rs.11 Lacs for want of satisfactory explanation against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The undisputed fact that emerges is that the assessee has declared other incomes during AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 which are stated to be business income. In support of business income, the assessee has filed an affidavit which has been extracted in the assessment order. The assessee also filed ledger extract of agricultural receipts before lower authorities which was not considered. Considering the nature of the business, the assessee may not be in a position to furnish concrete evidence to establish the fact of carrying out the said business. In the absence of any contrary fact on record, the assessee’s explanation has to be accepted. The assessee has already shown presumptive income of 8% u/s 44AD. Therefore, separate addition of Rs.11 Lacs is not justified. We delete the same.
The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026