ASHWIN SINGH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1484/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 May 2026AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the details of bank accounts, policy premiums, and demand drafts provided by the assessee sufficiently explained the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to non-filing of return. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 14,55,630/- as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed the cash was received from policy applicants and used to purchase demand drafts for insurance premiums.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were unexplained. Whether the assessee was denied an opportunity to respond to a remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.03.2026Pronounced: 11.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1484/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ashwin Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-204, Sai Raj Residency, Ward-1(2)(6), Nr. Sangam Char Rasta, Surat Bhestan, Surat-395023 [PAN No.BFUPS6339Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Suresh K Kabra, CA Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2026 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A), Kochi on 10.12.2025 for A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.14,55,630/- as unexplained deposits. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in not allowing opportunity to the appellant for submitting rejoinder to the Remand Report submitted by Assessing Officer.” 3. The assessee has not filed return of income. The case of the assessee was reopened after recording the reasons and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2016 was issued. The assessee did not respond the statutory notices and therefore, the assessment order was passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act thereby

ITA No. 1484/Srt/2025 Ashwin Singh vs. ITO Asst. Year –2009-10 - 2– making addition of Rs. 14,55,630/- towards cash deposit in bank account as unexplained money.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that both the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) orders are ex-parte as the assessee has not received any notices. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had deposited the cash as under:

“09. The appellant had deposited the cash as under: Date of Deposit Amount (Rs. 12/05/2008 4,00,500 19/05/2008 4,00,000 28/05/2008 1,55,000 23/06/2008 5,00,130 Total 14,55,630 10. Immediately on deposit of the amount, Demand Draft in the favour of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited (BSLICL) was purchased from the Bank. The details of the DRAFT and corresponding cheques issued are as under: Date DD Cheque Amount Name of the Policy No. # (Rs.) Applicant/Application No./First Premium Receipt No. 12/05/2008 017467 154267 1,00,000 Xxxxxx/000000/7009951 12/05/2008 017468 154277 1,00,000 Xxxxxx/000000/7009951 12/05/2008 017469 154278 1,00,000 Xxxxxx/000000/7009977 12/05/2008 017470 154279 1,00,000 Xxxxxx/000000/7009977 20/05/2008 017486 154281 1,00,000 Rohinton Kathawala / A11848956 / 7010348 20/05/2008 017487 154282 1,00,000 20/05/2008 017488 154283 1,00,000 Pinki Bansal / A10950128 / 7010347 20/05/2008 017489 154284 1,00,000 27/05/2008 017607 154286 1,55,000 Xxxxxxx/A10950468/7010576 23/06/2008 017654 154289 2,50,000 Xxxxxx/000000/7485728 23/06/2008 017655 154290 2,50,000 Xxxxxx/000000/7485728 Total 14,55,000 It is submitted that the assessee is not at all the owner/beneficiary of the cash deposited in the Bank a/c. The cash was received from the Policy applicant which in turn was deposited in the Bank account of the assessee

ITA No. 1484/Srt/2025 Ashwin Singh vs. ITO Asst. Year –2009-10 - 3– and DDs were purchased for payment towards the policy premium of the respective policy holder by way of the DD. The Ld. AR further pointed out the copies of the cheques issued by the assessee and the DDs purchased against those cheques.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order the order of the CIT(A).

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the details of the bank account and the receipt of policy premium alongwith DDs purchased against those cheques categorically mentions the assessee’s transactions and also explained the cash deposits in his bank account. Thus, the assessee has already explained through his details relating to the cash deposits which should have been taken into account by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the addition does not sustain. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

8.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order is pronounced in open court on 11/05/2026

Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 11/05/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →