VISHAL GHAI,UTTAR PRADESH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(5) , UTTAR PRADESH

ITA 2197/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Vishal Ghai against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition of Rs.29,50,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer had alleged that the Assessee deposited this amount in a current account during the demonetization period and failed to explain the source. The Assessee contested that the account in question was not maintained by him and provided evidence of his actual bank transactions during the demonetization period, showing no such deposit. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the evidence, decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for further verification of the Assessee's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312251 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PARKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMIL AGGARWAL; DEEPESH GARG
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"I.T.A.No.2197/Del/2024 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2197/Del/2024 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vishal Ghai, 604, Emperor 1, Sector-93A, Supertech Emerald Court, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Noida, Uttar Pradesh. PAN No.AFXPG9111Q अपीलाथ\u0012 Appellant \u0014\u0015यथ\u0012/Respondent िनधा\u0007\bरतीक ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. राज\u0012वक ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR सुनवाईक तारीख/ Date of hearing: 25.04.2025 उ\u0018ोषणाक तारीख/Pronouncement on 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 07/12/2023 for the AY 2017-18 in sustaining the addition of Rs.29,50,000/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) as unexplained money. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the case of the Ld. AO is that assessee has allegedly deposited Rs.29,50,000/- in current account bearing account no. I.T.A.No.2197/Del/2024 2 2159002101007525 during the demonetization period. It was further alleged by the Ld. AO that assessee has failed to explain the nature and source of the same and accordingly, the said alleged cash deposit of Rs.29,50,000/- has been added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A by the Ld. AO and further same was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the present appeal. In this regard it is submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.29,50,000/- has been made by Ld. AO without any basis as current account bearing account no. 2159002101007525 was not maintained by the assessee and no such amount was deposited by assessee in any of his bank accounts (PB 17-28,33-35) during the period of demonetization which is also evident from the following: - “PB 42-63 is the copy of account statement of Punjab National Bank vide current account no. 2159002101007525 of M/s Global Aura Sports Private Limited showing that the cash was deposited in the above said company account at various dates during the period of demonetization not in assessee’s bank account. PB 29-32 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 13.07.2019 submitted before Ld. AO against the notice issued u/s 142(1) along with annexures of PNB bank statement (PB 33-35) and chart of cash deposit and withdrawal during the FY 2016-17 (PB36). PB 36 is the copy of entry-wise detail of assessee’s bank accounts during the FY 2016-17 showing that he had deposited only Rs.1,96,000/- during the demonetization period i.e. 9th November 2016 to 31st December 2016. I.T.A.No.2197/Del/2024 3 PB 33-35 is the copy of account statement of Punjab National Bank account no. 2159000100134802 for the FY 2016-2017 showing that cash amounting to Rs. 1,96,000/- was deposited by assessee during the demonetization period. PB 17-20 is the copy of account statement of HDFC Bank account no. 00881000287421 for the FY 2016-2017 showing that no cash was deposited by assessee during the demonetization, period. PB 21-28 is the copy of account statement of YES Bank account no. 001491900009711 for the FY 2016-2017 showing that no cash was deposited by assessee during the demonetization period. PB 1-3 is the copy of acknowledgement of ITR with computation of income for the AY 2017-18. PB 12-28 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 27.09.2018 submitted before Ld. AO along with the copy of Form 16 (P B 13-16) provided by the employer of the assessee i.e. M/s Investors Clinic Infratech Private Limited and bank statements (PB 17-28). PB 37-39 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 21.01.2019 submitted before Ld. AO along with required annexures during the assessment proceedings.” Thus, the above all evidences clearly show that no such alleged cash deposit of Rs.29,50,000/- was made by assessee in any of his bank account during the period of demonetization, therefore, such addition made by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is without any basis, material or evidence and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be deleted. I.T.A.No.2197/Del/2024 4 3. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The contention of the assessee is that the account in which the cash deposits were made during demonetization period appears to be correct. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. However, for the limited purpose of the verification of the facts and contentions of the assessee the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall verify the contentions of the assessee and if the contentions of the assessee are proved to be correct the addition u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee cannot be made. Therefore, in principle, we agree with the assessee subject to verification by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall verify and pass the necessary orders. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/04/2025 Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.04.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. I.T.A.No.2197/Del/2024 5 Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT: Delhi Benches-Delhi "