NYMISHA KUNDUM,NARSIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had clearly demonstrated the sources of the cash deposits through bank statements and other documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained and made an addition. The assessee claimed the cash was withdrawn from previous fixed deposits which were made from the sale of property.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were unexplained and liable for addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

Hearing: 09/05/2024

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.

8.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has sold a property and realized the amount in cash and made various Fixed Deposits. Further, it is also not disputed that on maturity of the 6 fixed deposits, the cash was withdrawn by the assessee on 29/08/2016. It is also noticed that the same amounts are deposited in a single instance into the ICICI Bank by the assessee on 14/11/2016 for Rs. 15 lakhs. The above facts have been clearly demonstrated by the Ld. AR through the submission of bank statements and a letter from Jampeta Cooperative Bank including the copies of the Fixed Deposit accounts. We therefore find that since the sources of the cash deposits have been clearly explained by the Ld.AR, the addition made by the Ld. Revenue Authorities deserves to be deleted. It is ordered accordingly and the Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 28th May, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →