SHRI AMARJEET SINGH,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that to serve the interest of justice, both parties should be given an opportunity to examine the cash flow of M/s Aman Coloniser and Developer. The assessee was directed to submit all supporting evidence without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the validity of a notice under Section 148 and the addition of Rs. 13,51,591/- on account of cash deposits. The assessee claimed the cash originated from M/s Aman Coloniser and Developer but failed to provide supporting evidence.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the justification for the addition of cash deposits under Section 69, particularly concerning the failure to provide evidence for the source of funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH: JODHPUR
Before: Shri Saktijit DeyDr. B. R. R. Kumar
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Bikaner, dated 08.10.2018.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in recording various finding in respect of validity of notice u/s 148 are contrary to the material available on record.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.13,51,591/- u/s 69 of the Act in respect of cash deposited in the bank account.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the documentary evidences and explanation furnished by the assessee and are on record.
The issue revolves around proving of the sources of cash deposits by the assessee before the Revenue authorities. The assessee submitted that the cash deposits were received from one entity, namely, M/s Aman Coloniser and Developer whereas he failed to produce any evidence before the Assessing authorities. Hence, we hold that interest of justice would be well served if any opportunity is given to both the parties to examine the cash flow of M/s Aman Coloniser and Developer. The assessee shall submit all the evidences in support of the claim before the authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22/09/2023.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
