SURENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO

ITA 3752/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Surender Kumar Aggarwal, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs.36,28,000 as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disbelieved the source of these deposits, which the assessee claimed were from loans taken from Tata Capital and Muthoot Finance. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the claims of loans and their withdrawals. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO, instructing a re-evaluation upon the submission of the required documents by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298861 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: GOVIND KUMAR; CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.3752/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) ITA No.3752/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2017-18) Surender Kumar Aggarwal, C-2/28, 1st Floor, West Enclave, Delhi 110034 PAN: AHLPA-0403-F ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi 110002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Govind Kumar, Chartered Accountant ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 05/03/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 22.07.2024, for assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Govind Kumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made addition of Rs.36,28,000/- as unexplained cash deposited during the period of demonetization. Reiterating his submissions made before lower authorities, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had taken loan from Tata Capital to the extent of Rs.29,71,030/- on 31.12.2015. The 2 ITA No.3752/Del/2024 (AY 2017-18) assessee has withdrawn Rs.24,90,000/- from the said loan over the period of time starting from 30.12.2015 to 29.02.2016 on various dates. He further stated that the assessee has also taken loan from Muthoot Finance Rs.1,25,575/- on 08.07.2016. The assessee has withdrawn aforesaid loan amount in cash from his Axis Bank account. The above said withdrawals were deposited in cash in two installments i.e. Rs.14,50,000/- on 16.11.2016 in Axis Bank account no. 913010055102689 and Rs.21,78,000/- in another Axis Bank account no. 913020055957813. The AO and the CIT(A) disbelieved the source of cash deposits and made addition to the entire cash deposits. 3. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Tiwari representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order submits that the assessee fail to place on record any documentary evidence to show loan from Tata Capital or Muthoot Finance. No reason was given by the assessee to withdraw cash from the loan amounts and retain cash in hand for such a long period. 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The addition of Rs.36,28,000/- has been made by the AO in respect of cash deposits during the period of demonetization. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposits as earlier cash withdrawals from loan amount received from Tata Capital and Muthoot Finance. The CIT(A) rejected assessee’s claim, as the assessee failed to place on record any documentary evidence to prove loan from Tata Capital and Muthoot Finance. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO with a directions to the assessee to furnish loan documents and bank statements indicating loan amount received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer after examining the relevant loan documents 3 ITA No.3752/Del/2024 (AY 2017-18) and bank statements, if any furnished by the assessee shall decide the issue afresh. If the assessee is able to establish nexus between the amount deposited in cash during demonetization and withdrawals from loan accounts (supra), no additions is warranted. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 05th day March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 05.03.2025 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "