RAMENDER SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 17/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee adequately explained the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the cash deposit could not be treated as unexplained money.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist and senior citizen, deposited Rs. 7,50,000 in cash during the demonetization period. The assessee explained the source of this deposit as agricultural income, supported by disclosures in the previous year.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit made during the demonetization period was unexplained money, and if the assessee's agricultural income was a valid explanation for such deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, CIT DR
Hearing: 18/03/2025Pronounced: 09/04/2025

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in appeal No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1058638883(1) dated 11.12.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 15.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- on account of cash deposit made during demonization period.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee had disclosed Rs. 2,25,000/- as taxable income and Rs. 5,50,000/- of agricultural income which was claimed as exempt in the return. In the earlier year, the assessee had disclosed agricultural income at Rs. 5 lakhs which was accepted by the revenue. The assessee is a senior citizen and an agriculturist. The assessee has only bank interest income and agricultural income. Despite the explanation given by the assessee in this regard, merely because cash was deposited during demonetization period, a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- was treated as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act by the ld AO, which stood upheld by the ld NFAC.

4.

As stated supra, the assessee’s agricultural income disclosed in the return for the year and for the immediately preceding year explains the source of cash deposits made in the bank account. Hence, there is no question of treating the cash deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09/04/2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →