AJAY MADHUKAR UGALE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's socio-economic status and the relief already granted, decided to make a lump sum addition of Rs. 1.25 lakhs out of the Rs. 1,95,000/-. This provides the assessee with a relief of Rs. 65,000/-.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 8,68,100/- on account of cash deposits during demonetization. The NFAC restricted this addition to Rs. 1,95,000/-. The assessee appealed this restricted addition.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity and quantum of addition made on account of cash deposits during demonetization, after the NFAC had already provided some relief.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2022-23/1047999768(1), dated 14.12.2022, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset that the relevant facts herein regarding the assessee’s sole substantive grievance seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities action
2 ITA.No.49/NAG./2023 making sec.68 r.w.s.115BBE addition of Rs.1,95,000/-; are in a narrow compass indeed. The Assessing Officer admittedly made the corresponding addition of Rs.8,68,100/- representing assessee’s cash deposits made during demonetization period. And that the Ld. NFAC has already granted him a substantial relief by restricting the said addition of Rs.8,68,100/- to Rs.1,95,000/- as under :
3 ITA.No.49/NAG./2023
4 ITA.No.49/NAG./2023
Learned DR has strongly supported the impugned addition. The fact however remains that keeping in mind the assessee’s socio-economic status in light of NFAC’s findings having already granted substantial relief to him; further accumulation of cash in his hands at the time of demonetization could not be altogether ruled-out. Faced with this situation, this tribunal is of the considered opinion that a lump sum addition of Rs.1.25 lakhs only out of that in question of Rs.1,95,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.65,000/- only.
5 ITA.No.49/NAG./2023 Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.05.2024.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026