METTA SUPRIYA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 455/HYD/2024Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 June 2024AY 2017-182 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the source of cash deposits was bonafide and acceptable, as the Assessing Officer failed to provide contrary evidence. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee explained cash deposits made during demonetization by stating she withdrew funds from her ICICI Bank account, which were remitted by her husband from the USA. The tribunal noted the close proximity between withdrawals and deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's explanation for cash deposits without contrary evidence. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

case, the Assessing Officer has summarily rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee without bringing on record any contrary evidence on record to disprove the claim of the assessee. The learned CIT (A) NFAC without appreciating the relevant facts simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, I set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete addition towards the cash deposits during demonetization period u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →