DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DHANBAD vs. PRAYAG CHAND KHETSI DASS, GIRIDIH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 235/Ran/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) D.C.I.T., Prayag Chand Khesti Dass, Central Circle, Sarawgi sadan dumri Road, Infront of Vs. Dhanbad. Town Thana, Giridih-815301 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AAHFP 2644 Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue

Department represented by Shri H. Robindro Singh, CIT-DR Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Date of hearing 30/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-3/10809/2016-17 dated 29/01/2026 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Shri H. Robindro Singh, ld. CIT-DR is represented on behalf of the revenue and Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that there was a search on the premises of the assessee and on the basis of the search, certain bank accounts were found and there was cash deposit to an extent of ₹ 3,86,86,100/- found to have been deposited during the demonetization period. It was the submission that as the assessee had not explained the details of the demonetized currency deposited in the bank account, the Assessing Officer treated the

ITA No. 235/Ran/2026 DCIT Vs Prayag Chand Khesti Dass different between the cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period and the income disclosed by the assessee of ₹ 1,23,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has without considering these facts, deleted the addition. 4. In reply, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein at page 12 and 13 the remand report has been called for from the Assessing Officer. Further he drew our attention to page No. 14 of the impugned order wherein the ld. CIT(A) has considered the remand report and has categorically given a finding that the remand report does not controvert the appellant's contention of non-rejection of books of account nor as the Assessing Officer given any adverse finding on sales, the specific bank wise reconciliation of the cash deposit was also not rebutted by the Assessing Officer. After considering the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. It must be mention here that the assessee is operating a petrol pump. During the demonetization period, petrol pumps were permitted to accept the demonetized currency. The Assessing Officer has also not considered this fact. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the remand report and the evidences produced, has deleted the additions. The ld. Authorised Representative vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. This being so, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) as the facts as recorded by the ld. CIT(A) have not been rebutted by the revenue. In the circumstances, the order of the ld. CIT(A) stands upheld and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.

ITA No. 235/Ran/2026 DCIT Vs Prayag Chand Khesti Dass 6. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 30/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 30/07/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi