TUSHAR ANAND,NEW DELHI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NOIDA

ITA 1772/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Tushar Anand, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeal-3, Noida, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,40,000 to his income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, citing unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, with the assessee's representative arguing that the deposits were from legitimate sources, including past savings and gifts, and not unexplained income. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal and deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471561 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Smile Micro Finance co. Ltd. vs. ACIT [WP(MD) No. 2078/2020 & 1742/2020 dated 19.11.2024]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAJEET GOEL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 132; 153A; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1772/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2017-18 TUSHAR ANAND, C-2, ANSAL VILLA, SATBARI, NEW DELHI – 74 (PAN: ADYPA7229E) VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 26.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 02.04.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal-3, Noida Delhi dated 21.02.2024, relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are that Assessee is an individual and derives income from Director’s remuneration from Alaknanda Vaults Pvt. Ltd. and also earns income from proprietorship concern in the name of Alaknanda Lockers, D-4, Rectangular-I, Minus 2 Parking, ABW Mall, Saket City, New Delhi. In addition to above, he has also earned income from house property. AO further noted that during the year assessee has deposited cash during the demonetization period of Rs. 5,50,000/- in the Maharashtra Bank and Rs. 2,40,000/- in HDFC Bank. Further, as per AO, the assessee was asked to furnish the sources of the cash deposited during the demonetization period with documentary 2 | P a g e evidence. Further, as per AO, explanation regarding the cash deposits in HDFC Bank amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- was not found satisfactorily. Hence, addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee. Against the aforesaid action, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO. 3. Against the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Before us, the assessee’s AR contention was that AO accepted the cash deposit of Rs. 5,50,000/- pertaining to business activity of the assessee which was duly supported from cash book of the assessee. However, the AO considered addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- u/s. 69A being cash deposit in personal savings account without appreciating the plea of the assessee that the cash so deposited was out of past savings and cannot be considered as income. It was the further contention that AO has fallen into error in computing tax @60% based on amended provisions of section 115BBE which were not applicable in the year under reference and applicable w.e.f. from AY 2018-19 only in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smile Micro Finance co. Ltd. vs. ACIT [WP(MD) No. 2078/2020 & 1742/2020 dated 19.11.2024]. It was further submitted that there is no case of any unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 2,40,000/- and the addition u/s. 69A is not sustainable, as the assessee is regular income tax assessee and has been showing substantial income in the year under consideration as well as in the past. It was further submitted that assesssee was subject to search u/s. 132 on 22.12.2016 wherein no incriminating material whatsoever was found and assesments for AY 2011-12 to 2016-17 were framed u/s. 153A at returned income without any addition or disallowance. Therefore, in these circumstances, the allegation of unexplained money in respect of cash deposit u/s. 69A is patently misconceived as no material was found during search to suggest existence or source of any undisclosed income 3 | P a g e and as such the addition is not sustainable. In the last, it was submitted that the cash deposit of Rs. 2,40,000/- in the personal savings bank account is out of accumulated savings and cash gifts received in the past and same does not represent any unexplained money or income chargeable to tax in the year under consideration and as such the AO has grossly erred in making the addition u/s. 69A without appreciating the bonafide facts and sound financial background of the assessee, hence, it was prayed that the addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- u/s. 69A may kindly be deleted. Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find considerable potency in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the cash deposits of Rs. 2,40,000/- in the personal savings bank account is out of accumulated savings and cash gifts received in the past and same does not represent any unexplained money or income chargeable to tax, hence, the same deserve to be deleted. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 02/04/2025. SD/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "