RAM KUMAR TALLAH,BENGALURU vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(5) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 733/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the facts were identical to a previous case where the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the jurisdictional AO to verify withdrawals and decide the issue, and to give relief if the assessee received no financial benefit.

What were the facts?

Cash deposits of Rs. 16,69,300/- in the assessee's bank account were treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3). The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account are unexplained income, and if so, whether the same could be added in the hands of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Ms. Swathi Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Hearing: 19.06.2025Pronounced: 02.07.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 03/01/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1071867155(1) for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has also filed stay petition.

2.

In the present case, the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 16,69,300/- was treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the same was added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) is in appeal before us.

4.

The ld. AR before us submitted that this Tribunal in the case of the assessee in for the asst. year 2014-15 involving identical facts has set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed similar direction can also be issued for the year in dispute.

5.

On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. However, the ld. DR did not raise any objection if the issue is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that this Tribunal in the own case of the assessee cited above has set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication by observing as under: “7. Considering the rival submissions, we noted that the assessee is an employee of the company M/s. Dreamz Infra India Ltd., and huge amount was deposited in his bank account. As per observation of the AO, the source of cash deposits could not be explained and hence added the amount deposited as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. As per para No.7 of the Assessment Order noted supra, the AO has noted that the company used to receive partially / completely in cash / cheque, online transfer through .

Page 3 of 4 customers through various bank accounts. The accounts team of M/s. Dreamz Infra India Ltd., and M/s. TGS-Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd., used to withdraw cash from all accounts for various payments in cash. Out of such withdrawals of cash, M/s. Dreamz Infra India Ltd., used to deposit certain amount into assessee's bank account for the online promotion for immediate use. As per the above observation of the AO, there is no dispute that the cash deposits belong to the company and it is also undisputed fact that assessee has accepted and acted in utmost good faith for the company as an employee only. Therefore, as per the above observation regarding source of cash, the cash belongs to the company which has been deposited into the assessee's bank account. Therefore, the source is explained. However, the payments made from the assessee's bank account has not been examined whether the payments have been made for the company's expenditures. We noted from the bank statements produced before us that in many circumstances the narration given in nabk statements in the name of Google.com Bangalore, The AO has considered only the cash deposits but the utilaziation of such deposits have not been examined to prove the real beneficiary of such cash deposits. Why the AO has added the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account in the hands of the assessee entirely? Here in the case on hand, the source is completely explained as per observation of the AO. Noted supra. The assessee has filed details of expenditure incurred from his bank account which is placed at P.B. page No. 24 to 26 . If the AO was not satisfied he could have taken action against the company since the real owner of the cash deposited is company. Accordingly, we direct to the JAO(jurisdictional Assessing Officer) to verify the withdrawals and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We further directed to the JAO that if he finds that the assessee has not got any financial benefit from such cash deposits the JAO is directed to give relief to that extent to the assessee and may take action against the company after following the due procedure as per law. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the proceedings before the JAO.

6.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case cited above, we respectfully following the same set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

S.A. No. 43/Bang/2025

8.

Since, the main appeal of the assessee is disposed off, the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

9.

In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in court on 2nd day of July, 2025

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →