MANSOOR ALAM SIDDIQUI,DEHRADUN V. ITO 1(1)(5), DEHRADUN

ITA 98/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mansoor Alam Siddiqui, a retired Wing Commander of the Indian Air Force and a senior citizen, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had confirmed an addition of Rs. 6,64,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer during the demonetization period, suspecting the source of cash deposits. The assessee argued that the amount was from legitimate sources including past savings and agricultural income, which had been accepted by the tax department in previous assessments. The Tribunal, after considering the assessee's service background, regular tax filings, and the authenticity of the agricultural income, decided in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717441 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT GOEL; PRANAV YADAV
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 98/DDN/2025 MansoorAlam Siddiqui IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “SMC”/ DEHRADUN] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 98/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2017-18) Mansoor Alam Siddiqui House No. 58, Silver Height, Near MaharashiVidyaMandir School, Dehradun- Uttarakhand 248001 PAN: AAOPSI59IC Vs. Income Tax Officer AayakarBhawa, 13-A Subhash Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Amit Goel, CA & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT, DR Date of Hearing 08/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 28/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 13/11/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs.6,64,000/- u/s 69A r.w Section 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposited during the demonization period. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 13/11/2019, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 98/DDN/2025 MansoorAlam Siddiqui The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/03/2025, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23/03/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Assessee is a senior citizen and retired as Wing Commander of Indian Air Force and filing regular income tax returns. Further submitted that the Assessee deposited the cash during the demonetization period and the Assessee has proved the source of the same before the A.O. that the said amount of Rs.6,64,000/- was out of past savings, admitted agricultural income and also savings of Assessee’s mother who reached heavenly abode. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the lower authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessee has served the Air Force and retired as Wing Commander after completing his service. It is also not in dispute that the Assessee had declared the agriculture income of Rs. 4,00,000/- in his ITR and the Ld. A.O. has not raised any objection on the agriculture income and the same found to be genuine by the Department. Assessee has been filing regular income tax return for more than three decades and considering the above facts Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 98/DDN/2025 MansoorAlam Siddiqui and circumstances, we find no reason to make the addition of Rs.6,64,000/- by the A.O. on the basis of mere surmise without giving any credential to the above facts. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in confirming the impugned addition made by the A.O. In view of the above, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the A.O. which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 13 .08.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 98/DDN/2025 MansoorAlam Siddiqui Printed from counselvise.com "