KANHAIYA LAL,ETAWAH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI
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 noted that bank credits and cash deposits represented sales turnover, supported by financial statements. It was held that cash deposits could not be separately added under Section 69A, especially when the assessee is primarily in business and lacks other income sources.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in hardware trading, was assessed on a best judgment basis for AY 2017-18. The AO estimated business income and added cash deposits from the demonetized period under Section 69A. The CIT(A) provided partial relief, considering a portion of the cash deposits as sales.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits made during the demonetized period, which represent sales turnover, can be separately added under Section 69A when the assessee is engaged in business and has no other source of income?
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 08-02-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 144 of the Act on 20-09-2019.
In the assessment order, Ld. AO estimated business income of 8% on bank credits and determined business income of Rs.3.24 Lacs. The cash deposited during demonetized period for Rs.13.88 Lacs was separately added u/s 69A. The total income was thus determined at Rs.17.12 Lacs. The assessee is admittedly engaged in the business of hardware. During appellate proceedings, the assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings wherein Ld. AO still refused to accept the claim of the assessee. The assessee stated that the actual sales were Rs.51.05 Lacs which was supported by copy of trading account. The cash deposits and bank credits represent sales turnover only. The business income was arrived at Rs.4.31 Lacs which was to be accepted. The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration, provided partial relief and held that sum of Rs.3.24 Lacs out of cash deposits during demonetization period for Rs.13.88 Lacs was to be considered as cash sales on which estimation could be made at 8%. The remaining assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. AR contended that all the bank credits represent business turnover only which is duly supported by the financial statements and therefore, the cash deposit during demonetization period could not be separately added u/s 69A. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is in a position to establish the same if another opportunity of hearing is provided to the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR has opposed any interference in the orders of lower authorities.
It is undisputed fact that the assessee is engaged in trading of hardware items and it do not have any other source of income. All the deposits in the bank account apparently represent sales turnover of the assessee which is supported by assessee’s financial statements and other documents as placed in the paper-book. Under these circumstances, the cash deposits could not be separately added u/s 69A. Therefore, accepting the prayer of Ld. AR and on the given facts, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its stand.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 12th 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 →- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026