RAMANBHAI P. VIRADIYA HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 556/SRT/2025Status: HeardITAT Surat23 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Vice President), MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were properly explained by the assessee. The assessee had submitted relevant bills, vouchers, and other documents to substantiate the cash deposits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramanbhai P. Viradiya HUF, declared agricultural income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- as unexplained cash deposit during demonetization, invoking Section 68 of the Act. The assessee provided details of cash deposits, withdrawals, and evidence of agricultural income from a substantial landholding.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization were sufficiently explained by the assessee, considering agricultural income and relevant documentation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 23.01.2026

O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 27-09-2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has shown agricultural income at Rs. 1,87,925/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposit during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- deposited in the Allahabad Bank and added the same as unexplained u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee has given the details related to the cash deposit and the corresponding withdrawals and also submitted that the assessee has more than 3 hectares and from time to time deriving cash from sale of crops such as cotton. The assessee has Ramanbhai P. Viradiya HUF Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– submitted relevant bills, vouchers and other documents to prove the cash deposits. Hence, we hold that the cash deposits were properly explained by the assessee.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026-

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →