BANWARI LAL,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 22/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 June 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee, being an agriculturist, had an arguable case regarding the source of the cash deposit. It was deemed appropriate to give the assessee another opportunity to explain the source before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a farmer, deposited Rs. 8,20,000/- in cash into his bank account during the demonetization period. He claimed this was from accumulated agricultural income and borrowings, but failed to comply with notices from the AO and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 8,20,000/- made by the farmer assessee during demonetization was unexplained income, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present his case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 115BBE,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual), Shri Dharm Singh Meena, JCIT-DR (Virtual)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 22/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year – 2017-18) Banwari Lal ITO Ward-1 C/o Shriram Taxway Services, 69 Sri Ganganagar LNP, Padampur, Sri Ganganagar-335061 PAN No. ANNPL 4752 G Assessee by Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) Shri Dharm Singh Meena, JCIT-DR (Virtual) Revenue by Date of Hearing 25 / 03 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 12 / 06 / 2026. ORDER PER: SUDHIR PAREEK, J.M.: This appeal is filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Add./JCIT (A) – 12 Delhi [hereinafter referred to as JCIT(A)] dated 18.11.2024 with respect to assessment year 2017-18 challenging therein sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that appellant Banwari Lal is a farmer who is engaged in the agricultural activities. Since he did not have any taxable income and hence he is not required to file any return of income in accordance with the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AR further

2 ITA No. 22/Jodh/2025 Asst. year: 2017-18 submitted that the appellant deposited an amount of cash of Rs. 13,79,000/-, out of accumulated agricultural income and borrowings from his friends and relatives during the year under consideration. In compliance to the notice issued by the ITO, Ward-3, Sri Ganganagar, the appellant assessee has failed to make compliance to the notices issued by the AO/ CIT(A) and accordingly, the AO has assessed Rs. 8,20,000/- in arbitrary manner as taxable income of the appellant in the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act ex-parte qua the assessee. The appellant assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

In the appeal, the Ld. JCIT(A), Delhi on account of non-compliance of notices by the appellant dismissed the appellant’s appeal sustaining the finding of the AO by observing as under:

“It is pertinent to add here that laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligent and careful plaintiff is favoured and prejudicial of him who is careless. Viewed thus, it is presumed that the appellant has no further cogent reasoning or/and evidence to substantiate the grounds taken in this impugned appeal. It is trite that the onus is on person making the claim, and the primary responsibility/onus/burden for proving the claim made before the tax authorities (Assessing Officers/Appellate Authorities) lies with the assessee/appellant. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to even discharge the primary onus/burden statutorily & judicially cast upon him to substantiate the claims made in the grounds of appeal in spite of adequate time and opportunities given as brought out in the foregoing paragraphs.

3 ITA No. 22/Jodh/2025 Asst. year: 2017-18 It is, thus, evident that the appellant has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and is has not even once argued with any supporting, relevant and cogent arguments/averment, constraining me to, dismiss this appeal as no material change has been brought out by the appellant, to what was available before the AO. Therefore, order made decided exparte and appeal of the assessee is dismissed." 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appellant has an agricultural land measuring 47 bighas and that he has no other income other than the agricultural income earned, so he was not required to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. In support of the ownership of the 47 bighas land, the appellant has filed a copy of the Jamabandi evidencing the ownership of the aforesaid agricultural land which is placed on record. The AR further submitted that the appellant sells his crops through arhatia/ commission agent and deposits his agricultural sales produce in following two bank accounts as under:

 KCC Account No. 7294008800001678 with Punjab National Bank, Ridmalsar  Savings Account No. 7294000100014637 with Punjab National Bank, Ridmalsar 5. During the financial year under consideration, the appellant has made withdrawals and deposited cash into the aforementioned bank accounts. The Ld. AO has reservation regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 5,59,000/-, 20,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- on 10.11.2016, 28.11.2016 and 14.12.2016 respectively, and he accordingly treated the cash deposit of Rs. 8,20,000/- made on 28.11.2016 and

4 ITA No. 22/Jodh/2025 Asst. year: 2017-18 14.12.2016, during demonetization period as unexplained income assessed to income tax u/s 144 of the Act by charging tax under the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act.

6.

The Ld. AR has explained from the copy of ledger account of appellant in the books of M/s Gopal Trading Company that the appellant has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 8,27,000/- on different dates as mentioned hereunder:

Date Amount (Rs.) 05.11.2016 3,07,000/- 07.11.2016 2,70,000/- 08.11.2016 2,50,000/-

7.

Accordingly, the AR contended that the said amount was lying with the appellant and consequent to launch of the demonetization scheme of the Central Government of India, the appellant was left with no choice but to deposit the said amount in his bank account. The Ld. AR argued that there was a long queue in the bank for the cash deposit during demonetization period and the appellant being a senior citizen could took many days to deposit the said cash in his bank accounts on different dates as per the bank statement. The AR has pleaded that considering the documentary evidences filed on record, the amount of cash deposit of Rs. 8,20,000/- stands explained and may be accordingly deleted.

5 ITA No. 22/Jodh/2025 Asst. year: 2017-18 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the impugned order.

9.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the appellant assessee is an agriculturist who is deriving income from agriculture crops cultivation from 47 bhigas of land owned as per the copy of the Jamabandi. We find that authorities below had treated the amount of Rs. 8,20,000/- as unexplained money deposited in assessee’s bank account during the demonetization period by passing order ex-parte qua the assessee. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant assessee is an agriculturist and has having no taxable income, so he was not required to file return of income for the assessment year under consideration. We observe that the appellant is a senior citizen and had not received the notices issued by the lower authorities during the course of income tax proceedings taken up against him and so he remained non- complied, unintentionally.

10.

From the record, it is evident that the appellant assesse is an agriculturist who owned 47 bhigas of cultivable agricultural land and thus, he has a good arguable case on merits on the issue of source of cash deposit of Rs. 8,20,000/- and he deserves to get one more opportunity of being heard before the AO to explain its source of the cash deposit of Rs. 8,20,000/- in his bank account during

6 ITA No. 22/Jodh/2025 Asst. year: 2017-18 the course of demonetization period. We, therefore, consider it deem appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (in short “the JAO”) to pass de novo assessment order after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the documentary evidences filed on record and may be filed in the course of de novo assessment proceedings by the assessee. At the same time, the appellant assessee shall cooperate in the assessment proceedings before the AO by furnishing all the detailed response to the query what so ever raised by the AO for examination and verification of the source of disputed cash deposit of Rs. 8,20,000/- during the demonetization period.

11.

Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to pass the de novo assessment order in accordance with law.

12.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 12/06/2026 under Rule 34(4), in accordance with the ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 12/06/2026.

7 ITA No. 22/Jodh/2025 Asst. year: 2017-18 Nimisha Sr. PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →