OM PRAKASH,MOHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(3), AAYA KAR BHAWAN, SORON GATE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided no justifiable explanation or evidence for the cash deposits. However, considering the assessee's socio-economic status and past savings, a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 pertains to proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal arises against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC which upheld the addition of Rs.10.80 lakhs in cash deposits made by the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs.10.80 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits was justified, considering the assessee's socio-economic background and family savings?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, “SMC” AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066201460(1), dated 28.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is according proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.10.80 lakhs, in the relevant previous year, as unexplained during the course of assessment framed on 07.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. We note in this factual backdrop that the assessee has neither filed any justifiable explanation nor cogent supportive evidence explaining the source of the impugned cash deposits. The fact, however, remains that both the learned lower authorities have also not given credit of the assessee’s socio- economic statues and family’s past savings which could reasonably be estimated to a lump sum amount of Rs.5.8 lakhs in the larger interest of justice. We thus deem it appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets the relief of Rs.5.80 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
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 →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026