ANIL SONKAR,MAU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), MAU

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH (SMC), VARANASI BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.138/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Sonkar v. The Income Tax Officer Nawapura Ward 3(3) Dohrighat, Ghosi Mau Mau (U.P) TAN/PAN:ECAPS9964P (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Faiyaz Ahmad, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.03.2024, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Addl/JCIT(A)-3] for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that during the capitioned assessment year, the assessee was engaged in the business of Agriculture Foods, Beverages and Fruits. The assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. The Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had made cash deposits totaling to Rs.31,88,300/- in his two Bank Accounts, viz. Bank Account No.31310134953 maintained with State Bank of India and Bank Account No.432802010019950 maintained with Union Bank of India,

ITA No.138/VNS/2024 Page 2 of 6

during the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’) after issuing Notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to the Notice issued by the AO under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued Notices under section 142(1) of the Act, requiring the assessee to furnish the details of source of these cash deposits. In response, the assessee submitted his reply through Income-tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal on 13.12.2019, stating that “…..I was asked to provide the source of income of Rs.9,72,500/- deposited in my bank account. I want to justify that such amount was received by me from customers on behalf of Agriculture Food & Beverages business done by me. It was a cash transaction business mainly i.e. all trading was done on cash basis. Such amount has been accumulated in my balance sheet in terms of my turnover. Therefore requested that such amount should not be included in my total income and no penal proceedings should be initiated against me". Thereafter, the AO issued a Show Cause Notice on 07.12.2019, requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the difference amount of Rs.9,72,500/-, being the difference between the total cash deposits of Rs.31,88,300/- in his aforementioned two Bank Accounts and total turnover of Rs.22,15,800/- shown by the

ITA No.138/VNS/2024 Page 3 of 6

assessee, during the year under consideration, should not be treated as unexplained income from undisclosed sources and added to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee failed to explain the source, the AO treated Rs.9,72,500/- as assessee’s unexplained income from undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under:

Profit declared by the assessee in his reply Rs.1,59,290.00 in compliance Notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act dated 14.02.2019. Addition u/s 69A of the Act Rs.9,72,500.00

Total assessed income Rs.11,31,790.00

2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 and 271F of the Act, separately.

2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee.

ITA No.138/VNS/2024 Page 4 of 6

2.3 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No.138/VNS/2024 Page 5 of 6

presumption and surmises only. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the lower authorities failed to establish wherefrom the alleged turnover of Rs.22,15,800/- was derived, especially since the assessee never made any statement regarding such a turnover before the AO or the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in support of the cash deposits made in his bank accounts, before the AO.

4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. objected to the restoration of appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed.

5.0 I have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that the order passed by the AO was ex-parte qua the assessee and the NFAC, without adjudicating the issues involved in the appeal, simply sustained the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, I set aside the

ITA No.138/VNS/2024 Page 6 of 6

order of the NFAC and restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/07/2026.

Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:23/07/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order

Assistant Registrar/DDO