ANKIT DINKARRAI BOTADRA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NAVI MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN () & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () Assessment Year: 2017-18
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
Assessee w Oils till 15th account in S Bikaner and J no. 61227282 2. The basic d of the Asses partner. 3. During the was deposite 61227282879 mentioned of partner nor h with the cash 4. Further, as in the financ financial year 5. Assessing 14,34,500/- t 6. As a matte was not awa belonged to th 7. Further, th for the assess the question d After a lot of gather the b account holde Oils and not A 8. Hence, the Rs. 14,34,500 Botadra. 9. The bank s State Bank of attached here 2. Briefly stated th filed his return of i was an ex-partner in a partnership firm n December, 2015. Ankit Oils used to ope State Bank of India (then called as Sta Jaipur before merger and acquisition) bea 2879 during the period 2016-17. details of Authorised person in the bank r ssee i.e Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra when e period 2016-17, during demonetization d in the above bank account bearing acc 9 by the firm Ankit Oils, however th f former partner Ankit Botadra who was had any dealings with the firm nor had h being deposited. s the account belonged to Ankit Oils, it w cial statement and returns of Ankit r in consideration. Officer has wrongly assessed cash de to the total income of the assesse. er of fact, when the first notice was receiv are that the bank account mentioned i he partnership firm where he was earlier he account status was inoperative makin se to document the proof that the accoun does not belong to him. f follow-ups with the bank, the assesse ank statement from the bank where t er for the account number is clearly sho Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra. e cash deposited during the demonetizat 0 should not be assessed against the as statement of State bank of India (former f Bikaner and Jaipur efore mergers and a ewith for perusal. he facts of the case are that th income on 05.08.2017 for the Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra 2 named Ankit erate a bank ate Bank of aring account records were n he was a n period cash count number he PAN was s neither the any relation was disclosed Oils for the eposit of Rs. ved, assesse in the notice a partner. ng it difficult nt number in could finally the name of own as Ankit tion period of ssesse Ankit rly known as acquisition) is he assessee had e A.Y. 2017-18
declaring total incom limited scrutiny und
144 of the Income-ta addition of Rs. 14,34
bank account during
3. Aggrieved by th the CIT(A) who affirm documentary evidenc relevant bank accou
Bank of Bikaner &
extract of the CIT(A)’s
“5. I have assessment grounds of th
In this cas finalized ma cash deposi period i.e. o
No. 6122728
Jaipur.
The appellan bank accoun and Jaipur various notic has not repli
To substanti the assessm documentary documentary to substanti account no. 6
me of Rs. 2,98,820/-. The case w der CASS and assessment was ax Act, 1961( in short the Act) a 4,500/- on the premise of cash d g the demonetization period.
his addition, the assessee chal med the addition of Rs. 14,34,50
ces on the plea of the assessee unt no. 61227282879 maintai
Jaipur does not belong to him s order is as under:- carefully considered the grounds order and material available on rec he appeal are interconnected.
e the proceedings u/s 144 of the aking addition of Rs. 14,34,500/- on ited by the appellant during the dem n 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 in the 82879 maintained in State Bank of nt in ground no.1 of the appeal has nt no. 61227282879 in State Bank does not belong to him. During th ces were issued to the appellant. Th ied to the any of the notices mentioned iate the claim that the bank account m ment order does not belong to the ap y proof has been submitted.
F y proof has also been submitted by th iate his claim of not opening or oper
61227282879. Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra
3
was selected for completed u/s.
after making an deposited in the lenged it before
00/- for want of e taken that the ined with State m. The relevant of appeal, cord. All the e Act were n account of monetization e bank A/c f Bikaner &
stated that of Bikaner he appellate he appellant d in para 5. mentioned in appellant no Further, no he appellant rating bank
The appellan that online r was submitt the assesse submitted by Hence, in a possible to g the grounds
4. We have carefu authorities, materia appellant and revenu filed before us is that deposits during the F of India (then called merger and acquisitio belonged to him and In the year under co cash deposits aggre
09.11.2016 and 30. facts as explained by bank account does partnership firm – M till 15th December 20
drawn to the Admissi that the basic detail were of the assessee partner and at the t nt in ground no. 3 of the appeal has response regarding the cash deposit ted stating that the account does no ee. But again, no documentary proof y the appellant till date to establish hi absence of the documentary evidence give any relief to the appellant. Acco of the appeal are dismissed.”
ully perused the orders passe al on record and the argum ue. The issue raised in the gro t the amount of Rs. 14,34,500/-
F.Y.2016-17 in the bank accoun d as State Bank of Bikaner an on) bearing account no. 612272
d hence, no addition ought to h onsideration, during the demone egating to Rs. 14,34,500/- w
12.2016 in the aforesaid ban y the ld. AR of the assessee ar not belong to him but it M/s. Ankit Oils, wherein he wa
015. In support of this, our att ion cum Retirement Deed. He fu ls (PAN) of Authorised person i e i.e. Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra, time of opening the bank accou
Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra
4
s submitted ted in 2016
ot belong to of has been is claim.
es it is not ordingly, all d by the lower ments made by ounds of appeal
- being the cash nt of State Bank d Jaipur before
282879 does not have been made.
etization period, were made on k account. The re that the said belongs to the as an ex-partner tention was also urther explained in bank records when he was a unt of the firm.
The ld. AR therefore partner nor had any with the cash depos addition ought to h submits that when t that the bank accoun the partnership firm utilised as a matte submitted that the sa it is stated that the assessment proceedin proof that the accou him. It was only afte finally gather the ban for the account numb of the assessee.
4.1 We find that the the lower authoriti documentary evide
Accordingly, in light back to the file of th file the necessary evi appeal of the assesse argued that since the assessee dealing with the said firm nor h sited during the year under co have been made in his hands the first notice was received, he nt number mentioned in the no m and was in a disbelief tha er of cyber fraud precisely a aid account does not belonged t account status was inoperative ngs making it difficult for him t unt number in the notice does er several follow-ups with the nk statement where the name of ber is clearly shown as Ankit O e assessee has remained non-re ies and has not submitted ences to substantiate his of justice, we find it fit to res he Assessing Officer and direct idences before him. Accordingly ee are allowed for statistical purp
Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra
5
was neither the had any relation onsideration, no . The appellant e was not aware otice belonged to at his PAN was and hence had to him. Further, e at the time of to document the not belonged to bank, he could f account holder
Oils and not that esponsive before d any relevant s contentions.
store the matter the assessee to , the grounds of poses.
In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (SANDEEP G JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 30/06/2025 Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 30/0
d/- GOSAIN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Ankit Dinkarrai Botadra
6
is allowed for 06/2025. /-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai