SHELENDRA YADAV,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(2) FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's artificial bifurcation of credit entries was unjustified as all receipts appeared to be business receipts. The Assessing Officer was directed to estimate business income at 8% on the entire credits.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 36.24 Lacs in cash during the demonetization period. No return of income was filed, and the assessee failed to provide an explanation for the source of funds. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 10.64 Lacs as unexplained cash credit and estimated business income on the remaining credits.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in bifurcating cash deposits and treating a portion as unexplained cash credit. Whether the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was applicable.
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) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26-10-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 144 of the Act on 07-11-2019. The registry has noted delay of 325 days in the appeal which stand condoned.
The case was subjected to scrutiny assessment on the ground that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.36.24 Lacs during demonetization period. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to establish the source of the same. No return of income was filed by the assessee for this year.
Since no explanation was forthcoming from the assessee, Ld. AO, after analyzing the bank statements, added Rs.10.64 Lacs as deposited during demonetization period u/s 69A. On the remaining credits, Ld. AO estimated business income of 8% and finalized the assessment at Rs.13.28 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
It is clear that Ld. AO has accepted the factum of business of the assessee. In such a case, artificial bifurcation of credit entries as done by Ld. AO could not be held to be justified. All the receipts apparently constitute business receipts only. On these facts, we direct Ld. AO to estimate business income of 8% on entire credits. The higher rate of tax as prescribed u/s 115BBE would not apply.
The appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on 19th February, 2025.
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 →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
