INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARATPUR, NEAR GOVERDHAN GATE, BHARATPUR vs. SANJAY MITTAL, BAYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1018/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 October 2026AY 2018-196 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed his individual return of income and the partnership firm had also filed its return of income with an audited balance sheet. The AO had ignored the conversion of the proprietary concern into a partnership and then back to proprietorship, wrongly adding the entire bank account receipts of the partnership firm to the assessee's individual income. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition after a detailed analysis of the partnership firm's ITR, audited balance sheet, cash book, and bank passbook. The CIT-DR could not produce any contrary documents to prove that the bank account receipts belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were upheld, and the addition was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee, Sanjay Mittal, initially ran a business as a proprietorship. From FY 2017-18, two partners were admitted, converting it into a partnership firm, M/s. Udai Chand Mittal. Due to disputes, the partnership dissolved on March 31, 2018, and the assessee continued the business as a proprietorship from April 1, 2018. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated receipts of Rs. 8,68,08,670/- in a bank account, which carried the assessee's PAN, as the assessee's individual income, stating the partnership's ITR was not filed before him and the deposits did not pertain to the firm. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after reviewing partnership documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,68,08,670/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the material facts of the case. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the bank account in question belonged to the partnership firm, M/s. Udai Chand Mittal, and not to him in his individual capacity. He submitted a partnership deed, the firm's ITR with an audited report, and a cash book to substantiate this. The partnership was dissolved on March 31, 2018, and the addition related to the firm's transactions. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated these facts and deleted the addition. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the CIT-DR, requested that the addition made by the AO be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Prakash

For Appellant: Shri Jatin Hrjai & Shri
For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH, JAIPUR Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Prakash, Accountant Member

ITA No. 1018/JPR/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Sanjay Mittal Near Govardhan Gate, M/s. Udai Chand Mittal, Bharatpur, Rajasthan Near Bus Stand, Bazaria, Rajasthan.

(Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.: AHWPM3896R

Assessee Represented by : Shri Jatin Hrjai & Shri Rohan Aggarawal, Adv. Revenue Represented by : Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT

Date of hearing : 03-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 30-10-2026

O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member: This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1018/JPR/2024 Sanj ay Mittal

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Udai Chand Mittal as a proprietary concern running retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum, upto the Financial Year 2016-17. From the Financial Year 2017-18 onwards, two partners namely Shri Vishnu Kumar Mittal and Shri Ajay Kumar Mittal had been admitted as partners in the above said business. The partnership continued during the F.Y. 2017-18 and due to some dispute between the partners, the partnership firm was dissolved on 31.03.2018. Again the assessee continued the business as proprietorship concern from 01.04.2018. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 21.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 11,15,450/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment. The AO held that the assessee has failed to prove that the deposit in the bank account as reflected in the return of income of the partnership firm M/s. Udai Chand Mittal, but the bank account carries as a PAN No. of the individual. Therefore, the AO held the same not pertaining to the partnership firm and no copy ITR filed by the partnership firm before him, thereby receipts in the bank account of Rs. 8,68,08,670/- treated as income of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and after perusal of the partnership deed, copy of ITR, profit and loss account, balance sheet, audit report of the partnership firm and copy of cash book, deleted the addition made in the hands of the assessee by observing as follows:-

“4.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the appellant and evidences on record. it is seen that the bank entries as mentioned in the assessment order related to the Firm M/s Udai Chand

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1018/JPR/2024 Sanj ay Mittal

Mittal, Bayana. I find that the appellant had submitted the copy of Partnership Deed, Copy of ITR, Trading A/c. Balance Sheet of the Firm, Copy of Audit Report of Firm, Copy of Cash Book of Firm before the AO. The AO could have verified the fact from the other partners of the Firm ie. .e. Shri Vishnu Kumar Mittal and Shri Ajay Kumar Mittal but no such conformation was made before adding the same as income of the appellant only. The documents submitted by the appellant have not been proved as bogus or incorrect nor had the AO made any enquiry regarding the genuineness of the above documents made. Further, at the maximum, the AO if he was of the opinion that the above bank Account belongs to the appellant, he could take profit part of the receipts as is the income of the appellant instead of taking whole of the receipts as the income. 4.4 Section 69A of the Act reads as Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the (Assessing) officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." 4.5 From a plain reading of the above section, is clear that the conditions required is that a) assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and b) such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and c) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or d) the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the (Assessing) officer, satisfactory. In the case of the appellant, the cash deposited was not found in the possession of appellant as it is the partnership Firm's account and not the appellant, and secondly the cash deposits related to the Firm M/s Udai Chand Mittal, Bayana. Thirdly, the appellant has also offered satisfactory explanation in the form of copy of Partnership Deed, Copy of ITR, Trading A/c. Balance Sheet of the Firm,

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1018/JPR/2024 Sanj ay Mittal

Copy of Audit Report of Firm, Copy of Cash Book of Firm. Therefore, section 69A of the Act is not applicable in the instant case. 4.6 The facts is clearly established by the appellant that he was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Udai Chand Mittal as a proprietary concern up to the Financial year 2016-17 and in the financial year 2017-2018, two partners i.e. Shri Vishnu Kumar Mittal and Shri Ajay Kumar Mittal were admitted as partners in the above said business. But the partnership continued only during the financial year 2017-2018, and due to some disputes between the partners, the firm was dissolved on 31.03.2018 and the appellant again continued the above said business as proprietorship concern since 01.04.2018. Therefore, it is established that the deposit in the bank account is income of the partnership firm M/s Uday Chand Mittal and not the appellant. Although the bank account in the name of M/s Uday Chand Mittal still carried the PAN details of the appellant, it does not mean that therefore, it becomes the Income of the ap es the Income of the appellant. The appellant can at best be faulted for not changing the PAN details attached to the bank account. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the addition of Rs. 8,68,08,670 u/s 69A of the Act is not sustainable and is directed to be deleted. The appeal on Ground Nos 1 to 9 are thus treated as allowed.” 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:-

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,68,08,670/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the material facts of the case.”

5.

Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue in support of the ground, requested to confirm the addition made by the AO.

6.

Per contra, Ld. Counsel submitted before us a paper book containing various documents including show cause notice issued by the AO and reply filed by the assessee, wherein assessee furnished various details including bank account with Punjab National Bank (PNB), copy of

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1018/JPR/2024 Sanj ay Mittal

the partnership deed, copy of the ITR filed by the partnership firm with audited report, cash book, etc. Since the partnership firm was closed within one financial year and the addition made by the AO in the bank account of PNB No. 1230012100000075 relates to the Firm with PAN No. AAFFU6669L and did not belong to the assessee, thus there cannot be any addition made in the hands of the assessee. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) fully appreciated the above facts as well as income returned by the partnership firm, deleted the addition, which does not require any interference and requested to dismiss the Revenue appeal.

7.

We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the paper book and various details filed by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that the assessee filed return of income in his individual capacity on 21.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 11,15,450/-. Similarly, the partnership firm also filed its return of income on 21.09.2018 with audited balance sheet declaring total income of Rs. 4,11,551/-. The AO ignored the conversion of proprietary concern into proprietorship concern and thereby, added the whole receipts with bank account of the partnership firm as the income of the assessee in his individual capacity. After detailed analysis of the above documents namely ITR filed by the Partnership Firm with Audited Balance Sheet, Cashbook, Bank Passbook, etc., Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made in the hands of the assessee. Ld. CIT-DR appearing before us could not place on record any contrary documents to prove that the receipts in the bank account belongs to the assessee in his individual capacity. Thus, we do not find any merits in the grounds raised by the Revenue and the findings arrived by Ld. CIT(A) does not require any

P a g e | 6 ITA No.1018/JPR/2024 Sanj ay Mittal

interference. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 30-10-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Prakash) (T. R. Senthil Kumar) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 30.10.2026 Dhananjay K., Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →