SH. NARESH CHAND SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO.,WARD-1(1)(3), AGRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
Upon perusal of the assessee's bank account statement, the peak balance was found to be Rs. 1,30,906/-. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to consider this peak amount as the addition for unexplained income, with the condition that this estimation would not serve as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-11, which involved reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary grievance was the lower authorities' action of treating entire cash deposits of Rs. 27,22,234/- as unexplained.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of the entire cash deposits as unexplained income is justified, or if the peak credit balance in the bank account is a more appropriate measure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 [in short the “CIT(A)], Agra’s order in appeal no. 376229650270118/CIT(A)- 1/Agra/ITO-1(1)(3)/Agra/2016-17 dated 25.03.2019, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action treating the entire cash deposits of Rs.27,22,234/- as unexplained, it emerges during the course of hearing from the perusal of the assessee’s bank account statement that the peak thereof comes to Rs.1,30,906/- only as on 28.05.2019. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assesee’s bank statement filed herein pertains to the entire relevant accounting period wherein multiple deposits and withdrawals of varying amounts cannot be ruled out. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the addition of Rs.1,30,906/- of assessee’s peak amount in bank account would be sufficient with the rider that this estimation would not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13THFebruary, 2025.
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 →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
