SUNIL KUMAR VIJ,DELHI V. ITO WARD-69(5), DELHI

ITA 4049/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Sunil Kumar Vij, a retired railway pensioner, against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 15.35 lakhs to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits in Vij's bank account during the demonetization period. The Tribunal examined the detailed cash withdrawal records provided by Vij, which totaled over Rs. 35 lakhs, and found that these withdrawals could sufficiently account for the deposits in question. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Vij, allowing his appeal and deleting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775100 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VINITA SHAH
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.4049/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Sunil Kumar Vij, A-2/437-438,Sector-8, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-69(5), Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi PAN :ABTPV8929P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Vinita Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 01.09.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Panchkula, in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-21/11479/2019-20, vide order dated 24.04.2025. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the relevant Assessment Year 2017-18 vide order dated 30.11.2019. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the ld. Addl.CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposit in bank account u/s 69A of the Act amounting to Rs.15.35 lakh. For this, the assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative hence need not be reproduced. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is retired pensioner from Railway and he retired on 31.03.2016. The assessee has declared Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.4049/Del/2025 income from pension at Rs.3,49,862/-, interest on saving bank account Rs.56,558/-, salary of March received in April 2016 of Rs.81,000/-. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 15.35 lakhs during demonetization period in his bank account no.150601000001071 maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, Sector-8, Rohini, New Delhi. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee could not explain the cash deposit made in the bank account and hence the Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs.15.35 lakhs in his return of income. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer despite the fact that the assessee filed the complete details of cash withdrawals and cash deposit during demonetization period and particularly in FY 2016-17. Aggrieved assessee came up in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Before me, the ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the details of cash withdrawals from assessee’s bank account maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, wherein, total cash withdrawals between May, 2016 and November, 2016 is totalling over Rs.35 lakhs. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) also noted this fact and even now ld. Sr. DR has not disputed this fact. Admittedly, there are frequent and sizeable withdrawals such as Rs.3 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs, etc on various dates. The assessee has filed a complete chart before us as well as before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A), Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.4049/Del/2025 which is reproduced in order of the Addl. CIT(A) and for the sake of brevity, the same is reproduced below:- Date Amount (Rs.) 06.05.2016 3,00,000 24.06.2016 2,00,000 06.07.2016 50,000 08.07.2016 1,50,000 13.07.2016 1,00,000 14.07.2016 1,50,000 22.07.2016 50,000 25.07.2016 1,50,000 02.08.2016 1,50,000 06.08.2016 1,25,000 12.08.216 1,25,000 17.08.2016 60,000 23.08.2016 1,25,000 28.08.2016 90,000 07.09.2016 1,25,000 12.09.2016 50,000 16.09.2016 80,000 23.09.2016 60,000 28.09.2016 25,000 01.10.2016 40,000 04.10.2016 4,00,000 07.10.2016 1,50,000 10.10.2016 30,000 17.10.2016 1,70,000 19.10.2016 50,000 21.10.2016 1,50,000 28.10.2016 1,00,000 31.10.2016 2,00,000 04.11.2016 50,000 07.11.2016 1,50,000 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.4049/Del/2025 6. Now, before me, the ld. Sr. DR only stated that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee conceded that the amount withdrawn is used for the purpose of construction as well as son’s marriage. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has reproduced the e-mail filed by the assessee dated 25.06.2019 and which states as under:- “........ Sunil Vij had worked in Northern Railways for 26 years and he retired on 31st March, 2016. The amount in my account was as my personal savings from 2006 to 2016 and had used money for construction of my son’s marriage.....” 6.1. The ld. Addl. CIT(A) also recorded this fact in para 6.3. as under:- “6.3. From the details of cash withdrawals as tabulated above, it is crystal clear that the cash has been withdrawn regularly for the purposes motioned by the appellant that “These funds were primarily used for the construction of my house and my son’s marriage.” 6.2. The Ld. AR explained that from the contents of email dated 25.06.2019, it is nowhere stated that these withdrawals were utilized for son’s marriage, where she made a statement at bar that the son’s marriage has not happened till 31.12.2016 i.e. till the demonetization process was over. I have gone through the facts in entirety and noted that there are sufficient withdrawals of Rs.35 lakhs and which will meet the redeposit of the same cash of Rs.15.35 lakhs. Hence, I considered the cash deposited in the bank account as explained and delete the addition. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01st September, 2025 Sd/- [MAHAVIR SINGH] VICE PRESIDENT Dated 01.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.4049/Del/2025 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "