AKHILESH KUMAR ,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(1)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4977/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 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 found merit in the assessee's explanation, noting that the assessee and his wife were pensioners and had previously withdrawn Rs.24,63,000/-, which was un-rebutted by the Revenue. The Revenue's contentions were rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order upholding the addition of Rs.19,00,000/- cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained. The assessee stated that this amount was explained by previous withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits during demonetization can be considered unexplained when supported by prior withdrawals and the assessee's status as a pensioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 23.09.2025Pronounced: 23.09.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Akhilesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, I-601, Arihant Arden, Sector-1, Ward-5(1)(1), Bisrakh, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308 Noida-201307 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEHPK3896B Assessee by: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Chennai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078500301(1) dated 15.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.19,00,000/- as unexplained, in the assessment order dated 11.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Akhilesh Kumar 4. That being the case, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to page 13 in the lower appellate discussion wherein the assessee has already appears to have withdrawn an amount of Rs.24,63,000/- in F.Y. 2015-16 and F.Y. 2016-17 which has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. It is further stated that the assessee himself and his wife are stated to be pensioners only. That being the case, the tribunal finds merit in the assessee’s explanation attributing source of the impugned cash business of Rs.19,00,000/- to his previous withdrawal of Rs.24,63,000/- in very terms. The Revenue vehement contentions supporting the impugned addition stand rejected therefore.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →