Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose from an order upholding an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as unexplained peak credit. The assessee had withdrawn Rs. 1,05,58,500/- which formed the source of subsequent re-deposits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the withdrawn amount could form the source of re-deposits, making the peak credit addition potentially unexplained. The addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- was deleted. The issue regarding household withdrawals of Rs. 2,00,000/- was not pressed by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of peak credit amount as unexplained is justified when the assessee had made substantial withdrawals that could form the source of re-deposits.
Sections Cited
147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sh. Raj Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 172, Village-Nidavali, Mawana, Ward-1(2)(3), Meerut-250401 Meerut-250001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BKDPR2950L Assessee by: Sh. Shrey Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079092834(1) dated 30.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s first and foremost issue between both the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action adding “peak” credit amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as unexplained in the assessee’s hands; in assessment order dated 27.03.2024 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Raj Kumar 4. That being the case, the learned counsel invites tribunal’s attention to the fact that the assessee had admittedly withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,05,58,500/- which forms source of the re-deposits thereof in cash to the tune of Rs.75,94,000/- in the relevant previous year. The necessary inference which would arise in such an instance is that the assessee had re-deposited her earlier withdrawals which stand added as unexplained herein. The impugned addition of Rs.8,00,000/- of peak amount in the assessee’s hands stands deleted in very terms therefore.
Learned counsel does not press for the assessee’s latter issue of household withdrawals addition amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- keeping in mind smallness thereof. Rejected accordingly.