SANJAY KUMAR JAIN,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

ITA 218/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 September 2026AY 2017-1813 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to file a return of income and provided reasons for non-representation before the AO due to his brother's ill health. The Tribunal observed that the additions were made on two counts: alleged difference in turnover and unexplained cash deposits. The assessee contended that the AO erroneously compared bank credits with declared sales. The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished explanations for cash deposits and turnover, but these were not duly verified by the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal held that in the absence of verification by the lower authorities, the assessee's claims remained unverifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to furnish all material evidence. The grounds raised were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain, is in appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated scrutiny assessment upon receiving information about cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee had not filed a return of income. The AO noted a lack of explanation from the assessee regarding cash deposits and made two additions: Rs. 13,07,556/- on account of business income and Rs. 21,06,000/- as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), submitting evidence for business income and explaining that cash deposits were from business proceeds. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee is now before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the turnover at Rs 1,63,44,445/- against the declared turnover of Rs 96,03,650/-, when the assessee provided explanations for credit entries in bank accounts with supporting evidence? (Question of law and fact, concerning the determination of correct turnover). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 21,06,000/- under Section 69A as cash deposited during the demonetization period, when the deposit was claimed to be out of cash in hand from business proceeds with all details and evidence submitted? (Question of law and fact, concerning unexplained cash deposits). 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law, concerning the applicability of a specific tax provision). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the AO mistakenly compared bank credits of Rs. 1,84,50,445/- with declared sales of Rs. 96,03,650/-, leading to an erroneous addition. The assessee claimed that cash deposits were from business transactions recorded in books and that evidence was submitted. The non-filing of return and non-representation before AO was due to the health condition of the assessee's brother who managed tax matters. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee, which the assessee failed to avail. Therefore, no interference with the lower authorities' orders was warranted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Badia, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rahul Padhya, JC-2

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.05.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. The order passed by the Ld CIT (A) supporting the order of Ld AO is bad in law and facts, void ab initio and with juri iction.

2.

That the Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in treating the turnover at Rs 1,63,44,445/- against the turnover declared of Rs 96,03,650/-. The assessee has given explanation for all credit entries in the bank accounts by submitting bank ledger with evidences.

3.

That the Ld CIT(A) erred in law

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →