RANBIR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-5, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 678/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 July 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash available from various sources, including opening balance, bank withdrawals, milk sales, and agricultural income, to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, made cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 8,50,000/- to the assessee's income, considering it as unexplained money, after allowing Rs. 2,50,000/- as cash in hand.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization by an agriculturist can be treated as unexplained income without considering the available cash and its sources. Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in disregarding the assessee's explanation and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, Adv
Hearing: 31.07.2023Pronounced: 31.07.2023

ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.01.2023.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre - CIT (A), NFAC, ("Ld. CIT(A)") dated 11.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned appellate order') is erroneous, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition made by Income Tax officer, Ward 5, Rohtak (hereinafter Ranbir referred to as "Ld. AO") u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act in case of the Appellant amounting to Rs.8,50,000/-on account of cash deposit made during demonetization period being treated as unexplained money.

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is in violation to the principles of natural Justice. The Ld. AO did not pass the speaking order and disregarded the return of income and responses filed by the Appellant.

4.

That the LA. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by Ld. AO under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE amounting to INR 8,50,000 by considering agricultural income as unexplained cash deposit.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming Ld. AO's order making additions under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE amounting to INR 8,50,000/- which was passed solely relying upon information about cash deposits made during the demonetization period and not bringing any evidence contrary to documents on record.

6. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in invoking provisions of 69A r.ws 115BBE.

7.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the return of income and additional evidences as filed by the appellant under Rule 46A.”

3. The assessee is an agriculturist engaged in agriculture and allied activities. Based on the total cash deposits of Rs.11,00,000/-, the AO made addition of Rs.8,50,000/- giving benefit of Rs.2,50,000/- as cash in hand which the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed.

Ranbir 4. We have gone through the summary of cash which is as under:

Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Opening Balance as on 01.04.2016 1,99,832 Add: Cash Withdrawal from Bank 10,01,000 Add: Milk Sale 2,88,695 Add: Agriculture Income 1,20,000 Less: Expenses incl. Chara Exp., Household 4,98,252 Expt., Conveyance, Drawing etc. Closing Balance as on 07.11.2016 11,11,275

5.

On going through the availability of the cash along with its sources with the assessee, we hold that no addition is called for on this account.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31/07/2023.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →