UTPALKUMAR DEVENDRAKUMAR THAKOR,VAPI vs. DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a salaried individual without regular books of accounts, had provided details of withdrawals and bank statements which were ignored by the lower authorities. It was held that the cash payment for on-money was from accounted sources, verified from the bank account.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,25,000/- as on-money payment for a flat booking, considering cash given by the assessee. The assessee argued that the cash payment was from accounted sources verified through bank statements and that the flat was jointly purchased with his wife for Rs. 60,00,000/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of alleged on-money payment for flat booking is justified when the assessee has provided bank statements and details of accounted sources for the cash payment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 22-08-2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2013-14.
The assesee filed return of income at Rs. 39,58,637/- from salary and Rs. 18143/- from other sources. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has given cash of Rs. 10,50,000/- for booking of his flat. The A.O. after taking cognizance of the reply of the assessee made addition of Rs. 5,25,000/- as on money payment u/s. 69 of the Act. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has given the details along with ownership of the said flat along with his wife was purchased jointly of the consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. The assessee has given details from the HDFC
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that that the assessee is a salaried and does not maintain regular books of accounts. In fact, the assessee has given details of withdrawals at page 7 of the paper book along with corresponding bank statement. The said fact was totally ignored by the A.O. as well as by the CIT(A). The contention of the assessee was that the cash payment as related to on money was also from accounted sources which stands verified from the bank account. Hence we hold that no addition is called for on account of on money.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026