MAYANK JAIN,MEERUT V. ITO, WARD 1(4), MEERUT

ITA 1928/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mayank Jain against the order of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4), Meerut, which was upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai. The appeal was directed against the addition of Rs. 8,50,000 to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which was claimed to be unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal examined the financial documents, salary income, and interest income of the assessee and found that the addition was made without substantial evidence, relying instead on conjectures about the utilization of cash withdrawals for household expenses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471970 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Gift
• Section: 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

"1 ITA no. 1928/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1928/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mayank Jain, Parasdeep, Punjabi Pura, Delhi Road, Meerut-250002. PAN- AAMPJ 8083 G Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Meerut. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Rohit Agarwal CA Department represented by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.03.2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, arising out of the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4), Meerut, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, leading to the instant appeal, are that the assessee filed his return on 16.07.2017 declaring income of Rs. 3,85,730/- after claiming deduction 2 ITA no. 1928/Del/2024 under Chapter VIA of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposits made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- during demonetization. In fact the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in his own bank account which was claimed to have been made out of the earlier cash withdrawals of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- on11.05.2016 and 12.09.2016 respectively in the same account. Cash deposit of Rs. 2,75,000/- was made by the assessee in the bank account lying in the name of his two minor sons, the source whereof was claimed to be from savings and gifts received by them at various festivals and family occasions. However, the explanation rendered by the assessee was not found to be satisfactory and addition was made to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/- by the Learned AO under Section 69A of the Act. 3. Heard the parties and perused the records. It appears that all the bank statements were duly furnished by the assessee before the authorities below. It is relevant to mention that the assessee is a member of joint family staying with his parents and lives in his own house not required to pay any rent and the house-hold expenses of the complete family was Rs. 2,66,083/-, the detail whereof had also been placed before the authorities below and before us too, which is found to be sufficient as per the standard of middle class family having only one earning member. The observation of the learned CIT(A) that the amount withdrawn by the 3 ITA no. 1928/Del/2024 assessee from his bank account was utilized for house-hold expenses, is, therefore, not to be beyond doubt rather on surmise and conjecture, neither the authorities below could bring any possible expenditure on record as to where the cash withdrawal by the assessee from his bank account was utilized. Having regard to the financial documents, the salary income of the assessee and also interest income from bank and NSCs the addition made by the Learned AO and further confirmed by the Learned First Appellate Authority is found to be arbitrary and without any basis and purely on surmises and conjectures. Thus, the same is deleted. 4. In the result, assessee’s instant appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 26.03.2025. Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Rohit, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "