PRAVEEN KUMAR MURARKA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 363/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 April 2026AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to support the cash deposits. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a deeper examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed cash deposits in his bank account were withdrawals from a partnership firm where he is a partner. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated a significant portion of these deposits as unexplained money due to lack of supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, claimed to be from a partnership firm, are unexplained money due to insufficient evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA

Hearing: 02.04.2026Pronounced: 17.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-2018

Praveen Kumar Murarka, Vs. ITO, Ward 3(5), Main Road, Mahabir Chowk, Madhubani, Basopatti, Madhubani – Income Tax Office, Ward 847225 – Bihar 3(5), Ganga Sagar [PAN: AMNPM5517D] Colony, Near Nidhi Chowk, Madhubani - 847212 APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Sh. Naman Nayak, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT

Date of hearing : 02.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)], dated

2 ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Praveen Kumar Murarka

13.06.2025, DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1077025786(1) on the following grounds:

“1. For that the learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,53,94,600 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. For that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of cash deposit/credit in Canara Bank amounting to Rs.1,53,94,600 and accepting the cheque deposit of Rs.13,86,000 in said bank account when all of them have been made out of withdrawal/receipt from the partnership firm M/S Shree Mahavir Fuel Station in which the assessee is a partner and these are duly debited in the capital account maintained by the partnership firm M/S Shree Mahavir Fuel Station. 3. For that the learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in understanding the evidence/details furnished before him. 4. For that on facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeal) has failed to appreciate that the evidence/details furnished before him being capital account maintained by the partnership firm M/S Shree Mahavir Fuel Station in which cash amounting to Rs.1,53.94,600 and cheque amounting to Rs. 13,86,000 has been duly debited. 5. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CTT (Appeal) has erred in partly not accepting the credit/deposit in Canara Bank by cash when partly accepting the credits/deposits through cheque in Canara Bank when mode of withdrawals/receipts in cash and cheques are available in the same evidence/details of partners Capital Account on the basis of which accepted the amount deposited through the mode of cheques. 6. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in stating that a sum of Rs.1,53,94,600 has been received in cash and no details except a narration that this amount relates to receipt/withdrawal from partnership account is furnished by the assessee. 7. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer and also the learned CIT(Appeal) has failed to appreciate that since the bankers of the partnership firm M/S Shree Mahavir Fuel Station, the State Bank Of India was charging cash handling charges on cash deposits therefore to avoid such expenses the assessee after withdrawing cash as a partner deposited the same in Canara Bank maintained by him being privilege account where no cash handling charges up to cash deposit of Rs.5 lakhs is charged and thereafter the same was refunded through banking channel. 8. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in treating the cash deposit/credit in the Canara Bank account which

3 ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Praveen Kumar Murarka has been out of the withdrawals/receipt from a partnership firm in which the assessee is also a partner and such withdrawals/receipt of cash are duly incorporated in the books of account of the partnership firm M/S Shree Mahavir Fuel Station to infer that such deposits in bank account (Canara Bank) as "unexplained money as per provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case confirming the addition of Rs.1,53,94,600 as "unexplained money" as per provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unwarranted, unjustified and illegal. 10. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, vary, delete any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing, if necessary.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on retail trading business under the name and style Jain Mata Dee Centre and also a partner in partnership M/s Shree Mahabir Fuel Station. He filed return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,97,450/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and reason “cash deposit during the year”. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 19.09.2018 was issued and other statutory notices also issued to the assessee. A detailed questionnaire were also issued to the assessee from time to time. The assessee did not comply of entire questionnaire issue. During the course of assessment proceedings on 02.12.2019 another notice 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee to comply on or before 06.12.2019 and details were asked for viz. cash book of the partnership firm where withdrawals were made throughout the year, scanned copy of partnership deed, details of items, sales and purchase with name and address of his supplier, purchase and sales register, cash book as per VAT return. In the VAT return, there is turnover of Rs. 70,10,646/- whereas turnover was considered as Rs. 36,12,530/- and return was

4 ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Praveen Kumar Murarka filed u/s 44AD and details for justification of cash deposit in Canara Bank Account No. 41942140000009. In this regard, the assessee filed reply on 17.12.2019. From the submissions it was observed that the assessee did not provide the coy of partnership deed, firm cash book and books of accounts as required in the course of verification of his name and cash deposit into the bank account number (noted supra) and bank statement. It was observed that there is total cash deposit of Rs. 2,24,23,990/- out of which with respect to the cash deposit of Rs. 1,71,60,500/-, the assessee claimed that these amounts relates to the withdrawal of partnership firm. The source of cash deposit as narrated by the assessee were rejected as no supporting evidence was made available by submitting for uploading the required materials even after being reminded again and again during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,71,60,500/- was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and section 115BBE of the Act was applied.

3.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed written submissions which is as under:

5 ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Praveen Kumar Murarka

6 ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Praveen Kumar Murarka

4.

During the course of appellate proceedings, copy of partnership deed was produced, but in support of cash withdrawal of partnership firm no evidences were produced. The Ld. CIT(A) after examining the

7 ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Praveen Kumar Murarka documents available before him he allowed the cheque transactions of Rs. 13,86,000/- but for want of evidences/detail regarding withdrawal of cash from partnership firm rest amount of Rs. 1,53,94,600/- was confirmed.

5.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT.

6.

The Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) (noted supra) and submitted that the partnership firm is running a petrol pump, it has huge cash transactions and sales are made at cash and while depositing the cash into the bank account the bank is charging huge cash handling charges , to avoid this charges the cash is deposited in the assessee’s bank account and later on the amount is transferred into the partnership firm bank account and he further submitted that the assessee is not engaged in any other activity and copy of partnership account was submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and he further requested that if one more chance is given to the assessee, the assessee will be able to substantiate the entries made in the cash book and VAT return.

7.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the order of lower authorities and submitted that there is no colour of money with the same amount as stated by the Ld. AR has been deposited as the sale proceed of the partnership firm is deposited in the assessee’s/firm bank account.

8 ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Praveen Kumar Murarka The assessee would have got some other benefits, he might have invested the money for other business activity which is not disclosed with the income tax department and he strongly supported that during the course of assessment proceedings, as well as first appellate proceedings. The assessee could not brought any cogent documents to prove the cash deposit in assessee’s/partnership bank account out of sales partnership firm.

8.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire materials available on record and the orders of authorities below. We noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, various opportunities given by the AO to prove the source of cash deposit in the assessee’s bank account even during the course of assessment proceedings, the partnership deed of firm was not produced for want of evidences to support the cash deposit in assessee’s bank account. The revenue authorities have treated as unexplained money in the hands of the partner. During the course of assessment proceedings, appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(a) and before us, the assessee could not furnish any credible evidence to support the cash deposits in assessee’s bank account. Therefore, we considered it fit to remand this issue back to the file of AO for depth examination and decide the issue as per law after giving a three effective opportunities to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of his claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of

9 ITA No. 363/PAT/2025 Praveen Kumar Murarka the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 17.04.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →