MANAN KIRITBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs could be considered as cash in hand belonging to family members, considering their family size and lack of separate bank accounts. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the benefit of this amount to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared an income of Rs. 1,66,000/-, but the Assessing Officer determined it to be Rs. 19,63,683/- due to unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(A) deleted an addition of Rs. 7,76,663/- but confirmed the remaining addition.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits made during demonetization can be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69A without considering family savings as a plausible source.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 22.03.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The solitary issue raised by the Assessee is as under:-
“The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, while passing order u/s 250 of the Act dated 22.03.2024 for AY 2017-18 regarding cash deposits during demonetization period by treating the same as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”
In this case, the assessment order has been passed by the ITO, Ward 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad on 17.12.2019 determining total income of Rs.19,63,683/- against the returned income of Rs.1,66,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank accounts. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.7,76,663/- as the amount pertains to some other person. With regard to the remaining amount of Rs.10,21,000/-, the assessee submitted that the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- in the Bank of Baroda and Rs.5,01,000/- in the SBI are out of personal savings of the family members consisting of father, mother, son, sister and niece. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidences with regard the occupations of the family members and confirmed the addition. Having gone through the record before us and the family size consisting of mother, father and son who do not have any separate bank accounts, an amount of Rs.8 lakhs can be fairly considered as belonging to the family members as cash in hand. Hence, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to accord the benefit of Rs.8 lakhs.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026