Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited Rs. 39,50,000 in cash during the demonetization period, claiming the source was receipts from members. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected this claim due to lack of supporting evidence.
Held
The tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, providing the assessee another opportunity to furnish necessary details and evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits during demonetization.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was the substantiation of the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period by the assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER BENCH The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 08.09.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 26.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
Heard the contentions of both parties at length and perused the material available on record. The claim of the assessee is that cash was deposited in the bank account during demonetization period in SBN of IRN 39,50,000/- and the immediate source of the same was out of the receipts from members. However, neither before AO nor before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has filed necessary details in support of this contention. Thus, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is provided to the assessee and the matter is restored to the file of AO with the direction to verify the source of cash deposited during the demonetization period. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidences to substantiate the claim made. With these directions, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.03.2026.