Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits made during demonetization were sufficiently explained by the assessee, considering agricultural income and relevant documentation.
Sections Cited
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
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.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026-