SUDHA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 16,75,000/- related to the sale of land should be allowed as explained. Additionally, Rs. 2,00,000/- could be considered as past savings and agricultural income.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 54,61,000/- in her bank account. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 21,65,000/- after considering additional evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were sufficiently explained by the assessee, considering sale proceeds, property purchase deposits, past savings, and agricultural income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-2, Noida dated 24.07.2018.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A)is bad in both in the eyes of law and on facts. (2) That on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in partially upholding the order of Ld. AO making an addition of Rs. 21,65,000/- by treating amount as unexplained cash deposit in the hands of the appellant. (3) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 16,75.000/- even when an evidence in form of an affidavit and registered sale agreement stating source of such amount was filled during the proceedings. (4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 4,90,000/- without appreciating the submissions made by the appellant.
(5) That on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in partly upholding the order of Ld. AO in making an addition merely on presumptions than on factual grounds.”
Brief facts of the case are that as per the AIR information, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 54,61,000/- in her bank account no. 720110110001569 maintained with Bank of India, Duhai. In view of the non-compliance during the assessment proceedings, the AO considered the entire cash deposit of Rs.54,61,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the assessee.
Additional evidences were filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) who forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer for his report and the remand report was given to the assessee for filing rejoinder. After examination of the additional evidences, remand report and the rejoinder, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.21,65,000/-.
The cash deposits of Rs. 54,61,000/- has been explained as under:
• On account of sale proceeds of land – Rs.10,25,000/- • On account of deposit for purchase of property by husband – Rs.16,75,000/- • The balance amount of Rs.27,61,000/- out of past savings, withdrawals and agricultural activities.
The ld. CIT(A) considered an amount of Rs.32,96,000/- as explained owing to the cash withdrawals of the assessee from the same bank account and considered an amount of Rs.21,65,000/- as an explained. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered the affidavit filed by the assessee with regard to the registered sale deed of an amount of Rs.16,75,000/- which needs to be allowed owing to the sufficiency of the evidences. With regard to the remaining Rs.4,00,000/-, it was submitted that it is out of the past savings and agricultural income. A certain amount of past savings cannot be discounted. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- can be conveniently held to be the past savings and from the agricultural operations of the of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/05/2023.
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 →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026