Deepak V. Hardeep Motors v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The case involves an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of an amount of Rs.1,09,26,810/- made by the Assessing Officer during the demonetization period. The assessee, engaged in the business of trading in spare parts & accessories of Honda and selling of Honda two wheeler scooters & motorcycles, had made cash deposits in various bank accounts in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period from 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The Assessing Officer added the entire cash deposits as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the cash deposits were from legitimate sources such as sales, loan repayments, and service receipts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition of Rs.98,20,810/- as unexplained investment. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer for cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes during the demonetization period is justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Shakti Sales Corporation Vs ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

• TamilNadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench

• Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench

• Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Burdwan

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Shri Gyan Chand Tatiya Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur

  Raipur bench

• Shri Pandian Hari Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Chennai