RAVINDRA DAS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHOPAL

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as

& by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by

the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-

26/1078144251(1), dated 03.07.2025 which is herein after

referred to as the “Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2017-18 and the corresponding previous

year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017

2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s

143(3) of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was

computed & assessed at Rs. 80,63,482/-. The income as per

the return was at Rs.5, 20,650/-. An addition of Rs.75,

42,832/- was made u/s 69A of the act by virtue of Para 5 &

6 of the aforesaid Assessment Order. That the aforesaid

“Assessment order” bears number:- ITBA/AST/S/143(3)

/2019-20/1023311706(1) and that the same is dated

28.12.2019. Which is herein after referred to as the

“Impugned Assessment Order”.

2.2 That the case of the assessee was selected for limited

scrutiny under CASS for the reasons cash deposited

during the year. During the year concerned the assessee

has made large cash deposit and the case was selected

for limited scrutiny to verify the returned income in

comparison to cash deposit made by the assessee, Vide Notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was

asked to provide total cash deposited by him during the

F.Y. 2016-17 and cash deposited during demonetization

along with source of such cash deposit, nature of

transactions, cash deposited by him during preceding

and succeeding years, etc. The assessee was also asked to

provide details in respect of transacting parties.

2.3 In response the assessee made online compliances

supported with bank statements, documents, cash flow

statement, Mandi License etc which is available on

records. The assessee is a vegetable commission agents

and buying and selling of vegetable is source of income.

The assessee furnished cash flow statement from

11.10.2016 to 31.03.2017. His turnover reported was

analysed with ITR details. Information regarding cash

sales and nature of his business were also furnished in

respect of preceding and succeeding Assessment years.

The information furnished in respect of transactions

made were test checked. The assessee is engaged in the same business i.e. Vegetable Commission Agents and

vegetable trading during the preceding and succeeding

Assessment years. The written reply furnished by the

assessee supported with, Mandi license, Bank statement,

cash flow statement, etc. were test checked.

2.4 On perusal of profit & Loss account submitted by the

assessee for the year ended 31.03.2017 it is noticed that

total gross receipt shown Rs.53,05,500/- but in bank

statement following credit found:- Therefore the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) on

25.12.2019 asked to explain justification of difference amount in

turnover and credit in your bank account.

2.5 That Assessee explained in his submission as under:- 2.6 It is also noticed by the AO that the assessee also deposited

cash in old currency (SBN) in ICICI Bank vide account

no.059001507618 Rs.3,64,000/- in various dates as under:

Date Amount

11.11.16 31,000/-

13.11.16 48000/- 15.11.16 48000/-

16.11.16 48000/-

21.11.16 49000/-

23.11.16 400000/-

13.12.16 51000

Total 3,64,000/-

Thus on the basis of above mentioned fact, explanation of the

asseessee that difference in cash deposit in abovementioned bank

is treated as turnover is not correct and this cash deposit cannot

be treated as turnover but it is unexplained money. Therefore

total cash deposited/credit as mentioned in Para no 5 Rs.

1,28,48,332/- during FY. 2016-17 whereas assessee shown total

turnover Rs. 53,05,500/- only. Thus difference amount of Rs.

75,42,832/- (1,28,48,332-53,05,500) is treated as unexplained

money u/s 69A of I.T. Act 1961 and same is added to the total

income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18. Based upon material

available on record, I am satisfied that the assessee has

concealed particulars of his income to the tune of Rs.

75,42,832/- and therefore Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is

being initiated separately against the assessee.

2.7. The assessee further submitted that Cash deposited in SBI

Loan account vide account no 31669866333 is not Income of the

assessee. On verification of record it is noticed by the AO that

said account not considered in calculation of total credit Rs.

1,28,48,332/- Thus submission of assessee is not acceptable.

2.8 Considering the above facts, circumstances of the case and

material available on record the total incom of the asessee is

assessed as under:

Income as per return Rs. 5,20,650/-

Add: As per para 6 Rs. 75,42,832/-

Total Assessed income Rs. 80,63,482/-

2.9 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s

246A of the act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “Impugned

Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and

reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:-

“5. DECISION: 5.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. During appellate proceedings, several opportunities were provided to the appellant to furnish submission in support of the grounds of appeal filed. But the appellant failed to comply. The opportunities given have been listed in para 2 above. It is crystal clear that appellant has been granted several opportunities to represent its case during the appellate proceedings but the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal filed. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the findings of the Assessing Officer are incorrect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee and others [1979] 10 CTR 354 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal, means effectively pursuing it. In absence of any documentary evidence substantiating the claims made in the Grounds of appeal and Statements of Fact, the appellant's claims remain unsubstantiated.

5.2 Under the above circumstances. I do not find any infirmity in the assessment order of the AO and therefore, dismissed the grounds of appeal. 5.3 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

“Impugned 2.10 That the assessee being aggrieved by the

Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this

tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the

form no. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-

“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the learned lower authorities is contrary to law, materially incorrect, and unsustainable in law as well as facts. And that all the adverse findings recorded therein are opposed to facts, equity, and law. 2.I am engaged in the business of vegetable trading and earn commission through bulk buying and selling. My business is cash-intensive by nature, involving frequent cash deposits and withdrawals to facilitate daily operations. The cash deposited during the demonetisation period was entirely from legitimate business sales and commission income. 3. I am not well-versed in formal education and lack proficiency in digital platforms. Due to my limited technical knowledge, I was 3 unable to regularly access the Income Tax portal and respond to the notices issued. This inadvertent lapse was not intentional but purely circumstantial.”

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 05.05.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the

Assessee appeared before this tribunal & interalia contended

that the “Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not

Proper. It is in the violation of the principles of natural

justice. It therefore deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR then

submitted that in so far as the “Impugned Assessment

Order” is concerned the same is bi-parte in nature but in

so far as the “Impugned Order” is concerned same is an

ex-parte order. The Ld. AR submitted that the core issue

is of cash deposit in the year consideration. The total

cash deposit which was turnover of the assessee was

added. The assessee declared less turnover. The actual

turnover was more but assessee declared less turnover.

The Ld. AR submitted that sale of vegetable business was

Rs. 1, 12, 92,700/- whereas turnover declared was of Rs.

53,05,500/- [internal page 6 of Impugned Assessment

Order]. The Ld. AR submitted that purchases are made by

cheques. Revised return of income was not filed [upon query by the bench]. Page 4 of the Impugned Assessment

Order was read out with regard to deposit made with ICICI

Bank between 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 of Rs. 14,29,160/-

(old currency) Rs. 1,97,050/- (new currency) total Rs.

16,26,210/-. In so far as the “Impugned Order” was

concerned it was submitted that there was non-compliance

on the part of the assessee. Since the Impugned Order was

an “ex-parte order” the prayer for remand to the Ld. AO was

made so that systematically now full and true facts could

be disclosed to the Ld. AO by assessee so that real

income exigible to tax could be determined. Per contra

the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Ld.

AR has admitted that assessee had supressed the facts and

less amount was declared. The Ld. DR however stated that

for the remand to the Ld. AO for the proper presentation of

facts a cost of Rs. 10,000/- be imposed on the assessee. The

Ld. DR further stated that non filing of revised return to

declare correct fact is too an admitted position besides the

admission of less declaration of the turnover. It is a clear

cut case of suppression of less turnover. The Ld. AR was admonished and put to caution that remand to the Ld. AO

would be at the risk and responsibility of the assessee given

the facts narrated today. Hearing was over and closed.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered view that though

the “Impugned Assessment Order” is a bi-parte one but the

“Impugned Order” is an ex-parte one due to the non-

compliances by the assessee despite opportunities. Both the

Ld. AR and the Ld. DR are at ad idem that in view of the

discussions took place which is recorded by us as aforesaid the

Impugned Order should be set aside with cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee due to peculiar facts and circumstances which

too we have recorded as above which can be summarised as

under:-

vis declared turnover of Rs. 53,05,000/-.

4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us, we set aside the

“Impugned order” with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by

assessee to Income Tax department back to the file of Ld. AO on

denovo basis. The Ld. AO to pass a speaking & well-reasoned

order on merits of the case. The necessary proof of payment of

cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be filed before Ld. AO.

5 Order

5.1 In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as & by way

of remand back to the file of Ld. AO with direction as above.

5.2. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 08.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 08/05/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 16 of 16