ADEPT AGENCIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(1)(4), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals from the bank, which were recorded as cash in hand, were explained. Since it was the assessee's own action and not invested in any income-earning instrument, the cash could not be treated as unexplained.
What were the facts?
The assessee maintained a cash balance of Rs. 45,41,661/- as on 31.03.2009. The assessee explained that this cash was withdrawn from its bank account due to fear of bank closures.
What were the issues?
Whether cash balance maintained by the assessee, withdrawn from its bank account due to apprehension of bank closure, can be considered unexplained income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar
O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member
This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the CIT(A) – 25, Mumbai, in appeal No.CIT(A)-25/IT-252/14(1)(4)/2011-12 dated 26.03.2013. The assessment was framed by the ITO 14(1)(4), Mumbai, for A.Y. 2009-10 vide his order dated 30.12.2011 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making addition of cash balance maintained in cash book at Rs.45,41,661/- as on 31.03.2009.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of general merchandise and commission agent. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed from the balance sheet of the assessee that it is having cash in hand amounting to Rs.45,41,661/- as on 31.03.2009. The assessee was asked to explain such huge cash balance at the end of the financial year. The assessee explained before the AO that this huge cash is the result of the withdrawals made from bank account where assessee has maintained current account. The assessee further explained that from September 2008 to February 2009, it had made 24 withdrawals from the current bank account and this cash balance maintained in the balance sheet is the result of such withdrawals. The assessee also explained that these withdrawals were made based on the rumour that the Madhavpura Co-operative Bank Ltd, Abad Co-operative bank Ltd., are not doing well and finally they were closed down and liquidated. Similarly, Peoples’Co- operative Bank had closed in the year 2008-09 at Valsad. Looking into the entire episode, the assessee withdrew the said cash of Rs.45,41,661/- from its current account maintained with Saraswat Co-operative Bank, Mumbai. Furthermore, the assessee explained that it did not get any interest on current account balances. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and he made addition of cash in hand as unexplained transaction u/s. 69 of the Act by observing as under:
“The above submission of the assessee is not accepted on account of huge cash transactions without any trace of business dealings. As such, the cash in hand of Rs.45,41,661/- is added to the income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the I.T.Act.”
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by merely stating that it is not explained as to why such huge cash was lying with the assessee and moreover, the source of this cash deposit remains unexplained. Aggrieved, the assessee came up in second appeal before us.
We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessee has explained the reasons for the withdrawal of cash from assessee’s current bank account for the reason of fear of closure of the bank and also that it did not receive any interest on current account balance. Admittedly, the assessee has made withdrawals from the bank account during September 2008 and February 2009 as per the bank statement amounting to Rs.45,41,661/- and the same was kept as cash in hand and the entry was made in the cash book accordingly. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that these cash withdrawals from the bank which were entered into cash book as cash in hand were explained cash. It is assessee’s own action by which he has kept cash in hand after withdrawing the same from bank account and it is not the case of the revenue that it has been invested in some income earning instrument from where it has earned more income. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any income on the same and also cannot treat cash in hand as unexplained. In terms of the above, we allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 15th June 2016.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026