SANDEEP KUMAR GAGNEJA,. V. ITO , .

ITA 3635/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by Sandeep Kumar Gagneja against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax ADD/JCIT(A)-2, Bengaluru, which arose from an earlier order by the ITO, Ward 35(4), Delhi under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issue was the addition of unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period. The assessee had sold a property and received the sale consideration in installments, which was duly reported in the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2016-17. However, during the demonetization period, substantial cash was deposited in his bank accounts, which the tax authorities questioned. The Tribunal, after examining the details provided by the assessee, concluded that the source of these deposits was explained and justified, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 27318 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: UDIT DAD

Judgement Text

" THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3635/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Kumar Gagneja, H-35, Ist Floor, Jangpura Extension, Delhi-1100 14 Vs. ITO Ward 35(4), Delhi. PAN : AHDPG8602J (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY: JUDICIAL MEMBER: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against an order dated 20.10.2023 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax ADD/JCIT(A)-2, Bengaluru arising out of the order dated Assessee by Shri Udit Dad, Adv. Department by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23.10.2024 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2024 ITA No. 3635/Del/2023 25.12.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward 35(4), Delhi under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee is an individual, sold his shop/office lying and situated at Plot No.B-17, Shop No.2 (Basement), Commercial Complex, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-1100 09 to one Mr. Harvinder Singh and another for a consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- consideration whereof was received in instalments during the said month of March, 2016 in the savings account maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra, Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi-1100 09 being Account No.20024334346. 3. The assessee has withdrawn the said amount of sale consideration and the same has been given effect in the return of income filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 and duly paid taxes thereon. 4. During the Demonetization Period , the appellant deposited cash held in old currency to the tune of Rs.4,90,000 on 11.11.2016 in his Saving Bank Account maintained in the Bank of Maharashtra wherefrom it was withdrawn earlier on 01.03.2016. Further that on 13.11.2016, he deposited Rs.3,60,000 in HDFC Bank Account ITA No. 3635/Del/2023 No.06091000020095 and Rs.1,00,000 on 22.11.2016 in the same account out of the withdrawal of Rs.5,00,000 from Bank of Maharashtra on 29.03.2016. Further Rs.1,65,000 was deposited by the assessee in the HDFC Bank out of the miscellaneous cash in hands including past savings of business of train tickets which due to covid pandemic could not run properly and ultimately closed down. When the details of the Bank Accounts of the assessee, both with Bank of Maharashtra being Account No.20024334346 from where the cash was withdrawn on 01.03.2016 and 29.03.2016 to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively and that too through cheque and the details of HDFC Bank Account No.06091000020095 is made available with the Department, the source of the cash deposit in dispute has been duly explained by the assessee in my opinion, the confirmation of the addition made by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is not justified. Further that the deposit of Rs.1,65,000/- out of the miscellaneous cash in hands including past savings and business receipt is also found to be explained keeping in view of the assessee’s erstwhile business which also seems to be genuine and thus such addition is also liable to be deleted. ITA No. 3635/Del/2023 5. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned addition is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessed is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/10/2024. Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th October, 2024. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "