DHANIRAM SAHU,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 256/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 April 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(Appeals). The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to provide evidence explaining the nature and source of cash deposits of Rs. 12 lakhs. The agreements for sale of agricultural land presented were neither registered nor notarized, and no corroborative evidence was furnished.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee are unexplained income, and if the explanation provided is satisfactory to discharge the onus on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 16.04.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 13.01.2026 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. It is noted from Paras 5.3.2 & 5.3.3 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order that the addition has been sustained by the First Appellate Authority since the assessee was unable to provide evidence explaining the nature and source of the cash deposits of Rs.12 lakhs which was added as unexplained income including interest income of Rs.1370/- thereby assessing total income by the A.O at Rs.12,01,370/-. For the sake of completeness, Paras 5.3.2 & 5.3.3 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order are extracted as follows: “5.3.2 The explanation subsequently furnished by the appellant before the appellate authority, claiming that the cash deposits were sourced from advance money received under two agreements for sale (Ikrar Nama) of agricultural land belonging to his wife and son, does not inspire confidence. On verification, it is noticed that the said agreement was neither registered nor notarized, nor was any registered sale deed produced to establish that the transaction was genuine and had actually materialized. No corroborative evidence such as confirmation from the alleged purchasers, proof of capacity of the purchasers, or linkage between the alleged advance and the cash deposits was furnished. It is a settled position of law that an explanation

3 Dhaniram Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.256/RPR/2026

offered at the appellate stage, without contemporaneous evidence and not substantiated by documentary proof, cannot be accepted, especially when the assessee chose not to participate in the assessment proceedings. 5.3.3 The burden to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of cash deposits lies squarely upon the appellant. Mere assertions or self-serving documents, particularly unregistered and unnotarized agreements, do not discharge this onus. In the present case, the appellant has failed to establish the identity of the source, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the persons from whom the alleged advances were received. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in treating the cash deposits of Rs.12,00,000/- as unexplained income and also in including the interest income of Rs.1,370/- credited to the bank account, thereby assessing the total income at Rs. 12,01,370/-.”

3.

The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the interest of substantive justice, it would be appropriate to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to provide necessary documents/evidence before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC so that the matter can be revisited as per law.

4.

Considering the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on examination of the facts on record, I find merit in the contention raised by the Ld. Sr. DR since whether the amount of cash deposit is unexplained income of the assessee or not, necessary documentary evidences has to be furnished and accordingly, one final opportunity is granted to the assessee. In view thereof, the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC with a specific

4 Dhaniram Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.256/RPR/2026

direction to the assessee that this being final opportunity, the assessee shall provide all the relevant documents and evidences before the first appellate authority to represent the matter on merits.

5.

That as per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 16th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 16th April, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →