PERNIKA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL
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 deposit was below the threshold of Rs. 2,50,000 as per CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017. Therefore, no investigation or action should have been taken.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 2,40,000 in cash in their bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made an addition of this amount. The assessee appealed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits during demonetization is valid when the amount is below the prescribed limit in CBDT instructions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI M BALAGANESH
Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Aman Garg, CA Revenue by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 05.09.2023 12.09.2023 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.M. GARG, J.M.
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon dated 19.05.2022 for the AY 2017-18.
The Ld. Counsel submitted that except ground no. 5 & 6 the assessee does not want to press other grounds of appeal. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is an individual and Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,40,000/- on account of cash 1 deposited in the bank account of assessee during demonetization period and there was CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 by which the tax authorities were directed not to undertake any investigation or action in the cases of individuals where the cash deposits are less than Rs.2,50,000/-. Therefore, the appeal of assessee may kindly be allowed and AO may kindly be directed to delete the addition.
Replying to the above, the Ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the authorities below. However, he did not controvert that there is CBDT Instruction (supra) directing the tax authorities not to investigate and take action in the cases where cash deposits are less than Rs.2,50,000/- during demonetization period.
In view of above, since the cash deposits by the individual assessee, in the present case, is Rs.2,40,000/- which is less than the prescribed limit as per the CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 para 1.1 of guide line. Therefore, the sole grievance of assessee is allowed and AO is directed to delete the addition.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.09.2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026