BABU UMAMAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-9(5), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's income was from printing work and noted various sources claimed for the cash deposits. However, due to insufficient substantiation of financial statements from involved parties, the Tribunal estimated that Rs. 5 Lacs of the cash deposits remained unsubstantiated.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 25 Lacs for unexplained cash credits for AY 2017-18, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed the funds were from cash-in-hand, loans, family settlements, and gifts, but could not fully substantiate them.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 25 Lacs on account of unexplained cash credits is sustainable, and to what extent, given the provided documentation and the assessee's claimed sources?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Babu Umamaheswari ITO बनाम/ #72, Singanna Chetty Street , Non-Corporate Ward-9(5) Vs. Chintadripet,Chennai-600 002. Chennai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AEFPU-6887-A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Lekha (CA)-Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. R.Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld.Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 26-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 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 (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 27-02-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 05-12-2019. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by addition of Rs.25.00 Lacs u/s. 69 on account of unexplained cash credits. The Ld. AR placed on record various document to explain the sources of cash deposits. The Ld. Sr.
DR has pleaded for confirmation of impugned order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is adjudicated as under.
The assessee deposited cash of Rs.25 Lacs during demonetized period and submitted that the same was sourced from cash-in-hand, loans, family settlements and gifts etc. However, the assessee could not fully substantiate the same. Only few confirmations could be filed. The nature of income earned by the assessee was stated to be printing job work receipts. The assessee could not submit details of cash-in-hand. Under these circumstances, the amount of Rs.25 Lacs was added as unexplained cash credit u/s 69. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Form the record, it would emerge that the assessee is a regular Income Tax Payee and earning income from printing job work. For this year, the assessee has filed return of income at Rs.4.98 Lacs. The assessee is stated to have deposited cash of Rs.4.20 Lacs out of her own savings. The amount of Rs.10 Lacs is stated to have been received from siblings on family settlement which is supported by confirmation letters. The assessee is stated to have taken loan of Rs.8.50 Lacs from an agriculturist and the same is supported by confirmation letter. The amount of Rs.2.30 Lacs is stated to be received in gift from her husband. However, the assessee has not filed financial statement of any of these persons to fully substantiate the same. On these facts, we are left with no option but to estimate the cash-in-hand that could be available with the assessee. Considering the above data and the returned income of the assessee, we would estimate that the cash deposits to the extent of Rs.5 Lacs have remained unsubstantiated. Therefore, the impugned addition to that extent is sustained. The balance addition stand deleted. We order so.
The appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on 4th September, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा45 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे9ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :04-09-2024 DS आदेशकीIितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुA/CIT Chennai. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडFफाईल/GF
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026