BIPUL PAUL, KANKER,KANKER vs. ITO, KANKER, KANKER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 329/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 September 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be not well-reasoned and lacking examination of submitted documents. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in business, deposited Rs. 96,04,000/- in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained cash credit, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by examining all the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM

Hearing: 10/07/2026

Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM: This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2017-18 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.02.2026 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

2.

Vide sole ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.96,04,000/- made under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

3.

The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, proprietor of M/s Maa Bhagwati Stores, is engaged in the business of distribution of Dish TV

1 Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on 17.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.5,60,960/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) show-caused the assessee to explain the deposit of cash aggregating to Rs,96,04,000/- in various bank accounts during demonetization period. In response, the assessee submitted one-page reply consisting of Trading Account, Profit & Loss Account, Capital Account etc. of the relevant year. Further, the assessee submitted that the said cash deposits of Rs.96,04,000/- was sourced from business receipts received in cash; hence, the same was explained. However, the Ld. AO being dissatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, taxed the entire cash deposits of Rs.96,04,000/- under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, the assesse filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the assessee raised the matter before the Tribunal, which remanded back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. In the 2nd round of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal met same fate. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as under: “3.1 The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS selection based on cash deposit during the demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales/turnover while ratio of PBIT (Profit before Interest and Tax has decrease compare to preceding year). From the SFT-03,04 and 14 Account Summary Details it has come to know that the said assessee had cash transaction of Rs.33,19,000/- deposited during Demonetization period and had cash transaction from 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 of Rs.62,84,500/- in his bank account.

3.

2 In this regard, assessee stated that he is engaged in Commission and Retail trading business at Pakhanjore. He has submitted a single page where he has covered all the accounts like Trading A/c, Profit & Loss A/c, Capital A/c and Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2017. The assessee has not explained nor

2 Hence, cash of Rs.96,04,000/- deposited in bank, unexplained cash credit may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year as per under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961.”

4.

None attended on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. However, an adjournment petition was filed, which was not acceded to. Therefore, the Ld. Sr. DR was heard, who placing emphasis on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), prayed for dismissal of the appeal. On our specific query, that the impugned order was not well reasoned, the Ld. Sr. DR admitted that the same might be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.

5.

We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and have perused the material available on record. This is a second round of appeal. In the first round of appeal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.03.2025 passed in ITA No. 504/RPR2024 has remitted the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. However, we find that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not well reasoned and speaking one covering all the issues and reasons for upholding the findings of the Ld. AO. The assessee vide his statement of facts in Form No. 36 filed before us has stated that he has submitted following details before the Ld. CIT(A): Cash Book (day-to-day entries), Sales Register, Purchase Register, Bank Statements, Reconciliation of cash deposits with books, Tax Audit Report and Supporting Purchase bills and confirmations. However, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined and given any finding thereon and passed an order, which is not well reasoned. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case and in the interest of natural justice, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case to be set aside and 3 Bipul Paul vs. ITO to be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo/afresh adjudication. We, therefore, order accordingly. Further, we refrain from commenting on the merit of the case. Needless to say that the assessee will ensure cooperation during the course of remitted appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to consider the entire submissions of the assessee while deciding the case.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03/09/2026. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 03/09/2026 HKS, PS आदेशकी "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant ""थ"/ The Respondent

2.3.

The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 4. रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Digitally signed Hem Kumari //// by Hem Kumari Shrivastava, Shrivastava, PS, PS, ITAT, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.09.07 Raipur 12:01:11 +05'30' (Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur

4

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →