GIRIJA RAM ,SASARAM vs. ITO WARD 4(1), PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 44/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a proper explanation with supporting documents like his wife's ITR and affidavit. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was erroneous.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 12,10,000/- in cash into his bank account. He claimed the cash belonged to his wife, accumulated from her past savings in dairy farming and streedhan.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits in his bank account, which he claimed belonged to his wife.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “DB” BENCH

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA “DB” BENCH (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.44/PAT/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Girija Ram Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Patna Ward No.34, New Area Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar-821115 [PAN: AFOPR5516H] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA Respondent by : Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 08.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act by making addition of Rs.12,10,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 29.03.2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide

ITA No.44/Pat/2026 Girija Ram; A.Y: 2017-18 Order dated 08.12.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 08.12.2025, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that though the Assessee has explained that the source of the cash deposits before the Assessing Officer, which belongs to the wife of the Assessee and was out of her past savings from Dairy/Cattle Farming business and Streedhan, which were duly supported by the documents and the Affidavit and the income tax return, the Ld. Assessing Officer negated the claim of the Assessee and made the addition, which has been erroneously sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that though the wife of the Assessee filed an ITR, Assessee has not demonstrated how the cash was generated or accumulated by his wife, and the Assessee failed to establish the ownership of the cash deposits. Thus, by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee contended that the cash deposits in the account of the Assessee to the tune of

ITA No.44/Pat/2026 Girija Ram; A.Y: 2017-18 Rs.12,10,000/- were belong to the Assessee’s wife, Smt. Chand Muni Devi, who is an illiterate and never had a bank account in her name. The Assessee has also produced the Income Tax Return of the wife of the Assessee to show that she has been doing business for a long time and used to hold cash with her. The announcement of demonetisation being unexpected and sudden, as she had no bank account, the said cash was deposited in the bank account of the Assessee. It has been contended that the said cash was accumulated by the Assessee’s wife from past savings (i.e., cash in hand, Dairy/Cattle Farming business/Streedhan). In support of the said contention, the wife of the Assessee has also filed an Affidavit. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer, without making any enquiry or issuing notice to the wife of the Assessee, made addition in the hands of the Assessee. In our opinion, the Assessee has provided a proper explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits in his bank account by producing the ITR of his wife, Affidavit and other documents. Without there being any contrary material, the Assessing Officer erroneously made the addition in the hands of the Assessee, which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No.44/Pat/2026 Girija Ram; A.Y: 2017-18 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 30.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.07.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →