ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. SURESH, DEHRADUN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DB: DEHRADUN BENCH BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 173/DDN/2025 [Assessment Year: 2021-22] ITO, Suresh, Ward-1(1)(3), 13A, Subhash Road, Dehradun. Vs Dehradun-248001. PAN- EOFPS8808B Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Rajiv Sahni, CA Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR (VC) Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2026 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has primarily made three additions as under:

(i) Rs. 92,44,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank. This amount has been added u/s 69A of the Act.

ITA No.- 173/DDN/2026 Suresh (ii) Rs. 22,30,000/- added by way of difference in the market value and the purchase price of a property invested in by the assessee.

(iii) Rs. 45,00,000/- added u/s 68 of the Act, on account of an alleged loan taken from one Shri Randhir Kumar and Shri Pawan Kumar.

1.1 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A), whereby he could succeed in regard to all the three major additions, leading to the present appeal being filed by the Revenue.

1.2 The Revenue has approached ITAT with the following grounds:

“1. Ground No.1-On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 92,44,000/- made u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 accruing to the assessee due to unaccounted cash deposited by it in its bank account. 2. Ground No. 2 - On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.22,30,000/- made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act, 1961 relying on the report of the 'Patwari' and considering the 'nature of land' whereas there was huge difference between the consideration paid and the stamp duty value of the immovable property and the assessee did not furnish any government approved valuer report in support of this claim 3 Ground No. 3-On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 simply relying on the fact that payment was made through banking mode whereas the assessee has been failed to furnish cogent supporting documents to prove the creditworthiness of the lender to the satisfaction of the AO as laid down in the provisions of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. Ground No. 4- That, the appellant craves leave to add OR amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may arise.”

ITA No.- 173/DDN/2026 Suresh 2. Before us, the Ld. DR argued with the help of the finding given by the Ld. AO and also referred to a short paper book filed by the assessee. It was stated that the addition of Rs. 22,30,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act was justifiable made on the ground of a clear finding by the Ld. AO, that the certificate obtained from Patwari did not appear to be genuine as has been mentioned in clause 3 at page 6 of the Ld. AO’s order. It was also pointed out that it was not certain as to what evidence was filed before the Ld. AO by the assessee, since the paper book available before this Bench does not carry the necessary certificate as before which of the lower authority a particular document was filed. It was also pointed out that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are extremely cryptic as would be evident from the fact that a few lines have been mentioned in para 6.2.3 at pages 11 and 12 of the impugned order. The Ld. DR stated that it was still not certain as to how the land was agricultural in nature and therefore, it was averred that either this addition should be confirmed or the matter can be remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh verification. Regarding the addition on account of loan of Rs. 45,00,000/- was deemed to be justified by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the transaction was through banking channels. It was pointed out that the creditworthiness of the loan giver was not established. On this account also, it was the submission that the addition made was justified and its deletion was improper. Regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 92,44,000/-, the Ld. DR stated that the returned of income filed by assessee had not even a whisper of any

ITA No.- 173/DDN/2026 Suresh business income and it was pointed out that a profit and loss account filed showing Rs. 8,83,168/-as net profit was not disclosed in the return of income. In the light of this fact, it was the submission that the cash deposits remained unexplained.

2.1 Per contra, the Ld. AR argued with the help of written submission and stated that regarding the loan of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the transactions were not only through banking channels but Shir Randhir Kumar was the father of the assessee and had taken a term loan, which was passed on as loan to the son. Regarding the addition of Rs. 92,44,000/- on account of cash deposit, it was the submission that the cash deposits had been made on as many as 71 occasions, which itself shows that this was the result of regular business activities. It was stated that the assessee was selling bananas on whole sale basis and since most of sales were in cash, hence there were substantial cash deposit in the bank account. The Ld. AR pointed out the profit and loss account etc. in this regard, and stated that the business had been going on for quite some time and in the immediately preceding year and the immediately succeeding year, ITR returns have been filed after disclosing business income. It was the submission that due to the ignorance and carelessness of the tax consultant, the assessee has fallen in error in terms of a wrongly filed Income Tax Return. It was the submission that for the mistake of the tax consultant, the assessee should not suffer. Regarding the addition of Rs. 22,30,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act, the Ld. AR argued at length and pointed out various documents which indicated that land in

ITA No.- 173/DDN/2026 Suresh question was “ Nadi Shreni” land and there was considerable litigation in that regard. It was pointed out that even the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand had been seized of the matter and for which an order dated 13.06.2018 had been passed (placed at pages 21 to 24 of the paper book). The Ld. AR argued that land of this quality could not be considered to be normal land, and it would not attract the kind of interest that would be shown for any normal land. In conclusion, the Ld. AR relied on the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for upholding the findings thereon.

ITA No.- 173/DDN/2026 Suresh the authorities below have discussed at length as to whether the documents available with the assessee have been carefully examined, either before making the addition before the Ld. AO or even before granting relief to the assessee by the Ld. /CIT(A). Regarding the claim of business income, due to which the amount of Rs. 92,44,000/- is being justified, we find that not only was no business income disclosed in the return of income, but even the profit and loss account filed before us, showing a net profit of Rs. 8,83,168/-, has not been taken into consideration while filing the return of income. Even at the expense of a repetition, we may point out that the return of income filed shows the following:

(i) House Property – Rs. 4,60,000/- (ii) Capital account – Rs. 2,727/- (iii) Other sources – Rs. 3,56,742/-

3.1 Therefore, there is absolutely no business income disclosed by the assessee. We are also conscious of the fact that the assessee has complained against his tax consultant (for which necessary evidence is filed before us) and we are aware that for any mistake or an error committed by the tax practitioner, the assessee should not suffer. Accordingly, considering the totality of fact and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh assessment. It would be desirable that the ld. AO would examine the loan transaction from the father and see if the

ITA No.- 173/DDN/2026 Suresh same has emanated from any term loan obtained by him. The quality of land under consideration deserves to be re-examined in the light of the documents available with the assessee, and if needed then the matter may even be referred to the DVO. Regarding the claim of business income, the Ld. AO would do well to be guided by the return files in the subsequent years and even in the previous year to determine whether the assessee has shown any net profit after the trading results have been duly accounted for in the profit and loss accounts. We direct accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [SANJAY AWASTHI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 15.07.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,