PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD(2)1, DHANBAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is granted an opportunity to produce relevant evidence, including the cash book, to prove the source of deposits.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 15,65,500 in cash during the demonetization period, claiming it was from earlier savings and income. The assessee could not produce the cash book before the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were unexplained income. Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce evidence to substantiate the source of deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Priyadarshani Path, Katrasgarh, Dhanbad. [PAN: ACCPA5902H] vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Dhanbad…...………………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances by: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 01, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28, 2023 ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.09.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The assessee in this appeal has contested the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.15,65,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period.
During the assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that he had deposited cash out of earlier year savings and income generated during the year. Cash deposited in bank account was Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal previously withdrawn in the financial year 2015-16 for some business investment proposal, but the same was not successful, as a result cash remained in hand and deposited in the subsequent year. However, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the cash book, which the assessee could not produce. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the aforesaid cash deposits as unexplained income of the assessee and made the impugned addition.
The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer.
Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee could not produce the cash book before the Assessing Officer because of the dispute with the accountant. That all the deposits were out of past savings and current year income of the assessee and also out of withdrawal made in the earlier year. That the assessee may be given opportunity to produce the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer to prove the source of the deposits.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.
In our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity to produce the relevant evidences regarding the source of deposits including cash book etc. before the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to represent his case. Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026