BABULAL CHETAN,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 449/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 June 2026AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the bank statement, crucial for verifying the claim, was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the bank statement and other evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹68,81,494 representing cash deposits in the assessee's bank account as unexplained credit. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee claimed that no cash deposits were made and produced a bank statement to support this, which was not submitted to the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account are unexplained credit. Whether a bank statement not produced before lower authorities can be considered for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Chaudhary M, CA
For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.449/Bang/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Babulal Chetan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.69, Kadirenahalli Underpass, Ward – 7(2)(5), 2nd Stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 070. PAN – AQXP 5276 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vinod Chaudhary M, CA Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 18.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

2.

The sole issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of ₹68,81,494, representing cash deposits in the bank account, as unexplained credit under section 69 of the Act.

3.

In the present case, during the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that cash deposits amounting to ₹68,81,494 had been made in

ITA No.449/Bang/2026 Page 2 of 4 the assessee's bank account. Since the assessee failed to explain the source of these deposits, the AO treated the same as unexplained credit under section 69 of the Act and added the amount to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.

5.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) furnished the relevant bank statement and submitted that, contrary to the allegation made by the Revenue, no cash deposits had been made in the bank account. It was contended that this fact could be verified from the bank statement itself and, therefore, the addition had been made on an incorrect assumption of facts. However, the learned AR fairly admitted that the said bank statement had not been furnished before the authorities below. Accordingly, the learned AR requested that the matter be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

6.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities. However, he did not raise any serious objection if the matter was restored to the file of the AO for verification of the bank statement and fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee has placed reliance on the bank statement to contend that no cash deposits were made in the bank account as alleged by the Revenue. Admittedly, the said bank statement

.

ITA No.449/Bang/2026 Page 3 of 4 was not furnished before the authorities below and, therefore, has not been examined by them. Since the document goes to the root of the matter and is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue, we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh examination. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after examining the bank statement and any other supporting evidence that may be furnished by the assessee. The AO shall provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish the requisite details as called for by the AO. Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 30th day of June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 30th June, 2026 / vms /

.

ITA No.449/Bang/2026 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →