Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a student, did not initially file a return. After receiving information about cash deposits of Rs. 11,40,010/- in his bank account, a notice under section 148 was issued, and assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, adding the deposit amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a student, provided a plausible explanation that the deposits were temporary and made by relatives for visa purposes, supported by details of deposits and withdrawals. Since the revenue did not provide material to controvert the genuineness of these transactions, the addition was not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, explained as temporary funds from relatives for visa purposes, constitute unexplained cash credit under section 68.
Sections Cited
68, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
(Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bhaveshbharthi Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ghanshyambharthi Goswami, Ward 3(1)(2), 7/327, Ughanpagani Wadi, Opp. Surat Resham Bhavn, Lal Darwaja, Surat-395003 [PAN : AOWPG 8976 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : None Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay condoned.
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT (A)-8, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2010-11.
In the present case, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,40,010/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credit.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. However, considering that complete written submissions were already on record and the issue involved is covered by settled legal principles, the appeal is disposed of ex- parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. Bhaveshbharthi Ganshyambharthi Goswami Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 - 2–
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not originally filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Pursuant to the information received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 11,40,010/- in his savings bank account maintained with State Bank of India, Station Road, Surat, during the financial year 2009-10, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2017. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 27.04.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 72,660/-, mainly from tuition activity. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.06.2017, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.12,12,670/-, making addition Rs. 11,40,010/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have carefully considered the orders of the lower authorities, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material placed on record. Undisputedly, the assessee was a student during the year under consideration. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee did not maintain any books of account, and the addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made solely based on entries in the bank statements. The assessee has furnished a plausible explanation that the deposits in question were temporary in nature, made by his parents and close relatives for the specific purpose of demonstrating financial capacity for obtaining a student visa. The assessee has furnished details of the deposits and subsequent withdrawals, which are summarized as under:- Bhaveshbharthi Ganshyambharthi Goswami Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 - 3– Sr. Name of Depositors Relation Amount Date of Amount taken Date of No. deposited Deposit back (Repaid) withdrawal
Ghanshyambharthi Father 500000 01/09/09 500000 16/10/09 Goswami 2. Daxaben Mother 150000 02/09/09 50000 100000 06/10/09 Ghanshyambharthi 16/10/09 Goswami 3. Ravindrabhai Father in 180000 02/09/09 180000 28/10/09 Goswami law 4. Narendrabharthi Real uncle 200000 02/09/09 200000 06/10/09 Goswami 5. Dhruval Bhavsh Wife 55000 02/09/09 55000 06/10/09 Goswami 6. Bhavesh Goswami Self 3010 15/04/09 3010 Various dates 2000 17/06/09 2000 17/06/09 _ 50000 02/09/09 10000 03/09/09 40000 06/10/09 Total 1140010 1140010
On perusal of the submissions and details, it is evident that the assessee has adequately explained the source of the deposits. The Revenue has not produced any material to controvert the genuineness of these transactions or to establish that the deposits constituted income of the assessee.
In view of the above, we hold that the addition of Rs. 11,40,010/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable on facts and in law. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 11,40,010/- is hereby deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.01.2026 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 30/01/2026 Bhaveshbharthi Ganshyambharthi Goswami Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 - 4– btk