RAJENDER SINGH,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAITHAL
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 22.09.2025 passed for assessment year 2012- 13. A.Y.2012-13 2
The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, however, his grievance revolves around three fold of issues, namely ; a) The ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the AO vide which an addition of Rs.35,79,610/- was made to the total income of the assessee. b) The ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. c) The ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the assessment order which has been passed in violation to Circular No. 19 of 2019 i.e. DIN number was not issued by the AO. 3. The brief facts of the case are that AO has issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on 28.03.2009 on the ground that as per AIR/CIB, information available with him, the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.35,79,610/- in his Saving Bank Account No. 086105500104 maintained with ICICI Ltd., Kaithal. The AO, thereafter passed the ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 read with 147 of the Act and added sum of Rs.35,79,610/- to the total income of the assessee. A.Y.2012-13 3
On appeal, ld.CIT (Appeals) without adjudicating the issues submitted before her, dismissed the appeal by observing as under : 5.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, appellant filed documentary evidences in the nature of copy of trading P&L A/c and balance sheet of M/s. Manchanda Tyre House, copy of bank statement and copy of cash flow statement for the relevant previous year and copy of PNB housing loan statement. I have carefully perused the said documentary evidences provided by the appellant and I am of the considered view that these documents do not in any way prove the nature and source of said cash deposit of Rs.35,79,610/-. Copy of PNB housing loan statement is also perused and found that this account is a 'non-housing loan account' and the same is held jointly with other two persons. 5.2 In the light of the above facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the appellant failed to discharge primary onus cast upon him of proving the nature and source of said cash deposit of Rs.35,79,610/- made in the bank account during the relevant period. The addition of Rs.35,79,610/- made by the AO is therefore confirmed. All the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant therefore stands dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 5. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that ld.CIT (Appeals) simply reproduced the assessment order and thereafter upheld it by recording the finding extracted supra. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that the bank account in which the amount alleged to be deposited was opened on 29.12.2012, hence it does not fall within the accounting year relevant to assessment year 2012-13. If any deposit is being made in this account after 29.12.2012, then it will fall within assessment year 2013- A.Y.2012-13 4
14 and no addition can be made for assessment year 2012-
13. In order to buttress this proposition, he took us to page
No. 26 of the Paper Book wherein bank account of this account number has been placed on record.
6. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find neither the AO nor the ld.CIT
(Appeals) has applied their mind. A perusal of the record would indicate that AO was not possessing complete bank statement before issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. It has not been verified by both the authorities that this account was opened on 29.12.2012, how a deposit can be made in this account which is relevant for assessment year
2012-13. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that this bank statement was filed before the CIT (Appeals) who took cognizance of the written submission of the assessee but nowhere touched this aspect of re-opening. It is pertinent to note that had the AO collected the complete bank statement of this account, then he would have come to know when this bank account was opened by the assessee. Copy of the Bank Statement has been placed by the assessee on page No. 26 of the Paper Book wherein account opening date is available. It indicates that AO was A.Y.2012-13
5
not possessing the complete information about this bank account and he has formed his opinion only on the basis of information percolated to him through AIR/CIB. This information could be used for setting the assessment machinery in motion but before recording reasons and forming belief that income has escaped assessment, AO should have collected the complete information referred in this AIR/CIB information. Simply on the information reached to the AO and without making analysis of that information with the returns of the assessee, he should have not reopen the assessment. Therefore, we are of the view that account was opened on 29.12.2012, deposits made in this account cannot be added in assessment year
2012-13. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT
(Appeals).
In other words, addition of Rs.35,79,610/- stands deleted.
7. In the result, appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on 16.03.2026. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT
A.Y.2012-13
6
“Poonam”
आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुᲦ/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडᭅफाईल/ Guard File
सहायक पंजीकार/