Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to assessment year 2011-12, challenging an order involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The core issue involves cash deposits of Rs.20,84,500/- made by the assessee, which were treated as unexplained by the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear, and the case was proceeded ex-parte. While acknowledging the additions made by the lower authorities regarding cash deposits, the Tribunal considered the assessee's business income from transportation and decided to make a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs, with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits made by the assessee in the relevant financial year are unexplained and undisclosed income, and if so, what is the appropriate addition to be made.
Sections Cited
147, 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)- 1, Nashik’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1080164536(1), dated 29.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Next comes the sole substantive issue herein as the assessee is aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits in the relevant financial year amounting to Rs.20,84,500/- as unexplained/undisclosed under section 69A; in assessment order passed on 18.12.2018, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that both the lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition as the assessee had failed to explain the source thereof in assessment as well as in the lower appellate discussion. He could hardly dispute the relevant facts emanating from the case file that the assessee had filed his return indicating him to have derived regular business income from transportation of goods through Indian Railways etc. That being the case, the necessary inference which would arise in assesee’s favour is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represents his cash receipts in the said business activity only. It is thus deemed appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a 2 | P a g e precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.18,84,500/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.