SATYA PRAKASH MISHRA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GWALIOR

ITA 251/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 October 2026AY 2011-128 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1, challenging the reopening under Section 147, the Tribunal dismissed the ground as unsustainable because the assessee failed to submit the reasons recorded or the approval granted for reopening. Regarding Ground No. 2, concerning the denial of video conferencing, this was implicitly addressed by the Tribunal proceeding to hear the appeal on merits, but no specific finding was recorded on this procedural issue. For Ground No. 3, concerning the addition of Rs. 30,35,850/-, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed the deposits were business receipts but found no supporting evidence. The Tribunal noted that cash deposits were followed by withdrawals and payments by cheque, and that the AO had not disputed withdrawals. Considering the magnitude of deposits, the assessee's status, and the lapse of time, the Tribunal determined a lump sum total income of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the year, including the Rs. 1,95,520/- declared by the assessee, and deleted the balance addition of Rs. 27,35,850/-. The ratio is that in the absence of substantiating evidence for large cash deposits claimed as business income, and considering the time elapsed, a reasonable lump sum addition can be made, balancing the revenue's interest and the assessee's inability to provide proof.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Satya Prakash Mishra, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessment was reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that the assessee had deposited Rs. 30,35,850/- in cash into his savings bank account during the financial year 2010-11, and had not filed a return. The assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 1,95,520/- as income, claiming it was from a small retail business of cosmetics and confectionery, and that he did not maintain regular books of account. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this claim, noting similar large cash deposits in AY 2009-10 and observing that deposits from various cities suggested an unknown source of income. The AO treated the entire Rs. 30,35,850/- as income from other sources, assessing total income at that amount. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid, considering the assessee's submissions and court decisions? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the appellate order upholding the validity of proceedings under Section 147 and the addition of Rs. 30,35,850/- is liable to be cancelled for not allowing the opportunity of video conferencing as requested by the assessee? (Question of fact) 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,35,850/- being cash deposit in the bank account? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - Proceedings under Section 147 are illegal and the consequential assessment should be cancelled. - The appellate order should be cancelled for not allowing video conferencing. - The addition of Rs. 30,35,850/- is unjustified. The deposits were out of sale proceeds from supplying goods locally and through petty vendors. The assessee provided bank account details showing opening balance, closing balance, debits, and withdrawals, arguing that money withdrawn was rolled over and re-deposited. The assessee claimed sales of Rs. 29,85,450/- and argued that the declared profit of Rs. 1,95,520/- was more than 8% of the turnover under the presumptive scheme for AY 2011-12. Revenue's contentions: - The learned Senior Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250,Section 147,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Gwalior- 474002 Gwalior- 474011 PAN :AYOPM4896L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Kapil Sharma, Adv. Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 12.10.2026 PER : BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed in appeal No CIT (A), Gwalior/10634/2018-19 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)), u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2011-12, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

2.

In this case, the assessment was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 20.03.2018 on the basis of the information that the assesee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.30,35,850/- in his saving bank account during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 a

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →