DINESH KANT,REWARI vs. ITO WARD - 1, REWARI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the lower authorities that the bank account was operated in the individual capacity of the assessee and not as Karta of an HUF. In the absence of contrary evidence regarding the nature of the account and the source of deposits, the addition was sustained.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared salary income of Rs. 1,40,581/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 19,31,767/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which was upheld by the CIT(A). This was the second round of litigation after the Tribunal had set aside the earlier assessment order.
What were the issues?
Whether the bank account was operated in individual capacity or as HUF Karta, and whether the cash deposits were sufficiently explained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak dated 06.08.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order passed by Learned CIT(A) Rohtak u/s 250(6) dated 16-08-19 is bad in law. Further the Learned CIT(A) Rohtak has erred in Law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal.
2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in observing that HDFC Bank a/c No. # 02501930000186 is of resident individual instead of HUF. Further all the transactions of Rental Income and coy. share Income relates to HUF and under Individual status the Income is from salary only.
3. That the addition of Rs. 1931600/- as cash deposits with HDFC Bank upheld by the Learned CIT(A) is only on the basis of suspicion, Conjectures and surmises which is not permitted under Law and facts of the case.
4. That the Learned CIT(A) Rohtak grossly erred in not considering the documents of cash deposits version chart of day to day and other facts on record. Hence the order is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to the Law and facts of the case and this not tenable.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete one or more grounds of appeal
before or at the time of hearing.”
2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen that on the earlier occasions also, there has been no representation on behalf of the assessee. The Notice has been duly issued to the assessee. The assessee was required to represent his case. Despite having given sufficient opportunities to the assessee, the assessee has not attended the hearing of the appellate proceedings since 17.02.2021. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being disposed off on the basis of the material available on record.
FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee was an employee with M/s. Coventry Coil-O-Matic Ltd., declared income of Rs.1,40,581/- from salary. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed on 22.02.2013 at an income of Rs.20,72,350/-. While making assessment, the AO made addition of Rs.19,31,767/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. This is the second round of litigation in the earlier round, the case of the assessee was re- opened and the assessment was completed on 22.02.2013, assessing the income of Rs.20,72,350/- against the declared income of Rs.1,40,581/-. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to verify the claim of the assessee about the nature of the bank account. In second round of litigation, the AO yet again made addition of Rs.19,31,767/- against the declared income of Rs.140,581/- holding that the Saving Bank Account No.02501930000186 was opened and operated by the assessee.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, sustained the addition.
Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard contention of the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The authorities below have categorically given a finding on fact that the account in question i.e. Account No. 02501930000186 held with HDFC Bank, Rewari was in the individual capacity of the assessee and was operated individually but not in capacity of Karta of HUF. The assessee has not controverted this finding on fact by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, in the absence of the contrary supporting evidences regarding nature of bank account and the source of cash deposited in such bank account, there is no reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below, the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, grounds raised
by the assessee are rejected.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
