SH. AMIT KUMAR LEKHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(1), LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee was crucial for a proper decision. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 13,87,400/- as unexplained deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed to be a Customer Service Provider for rural persons, facilitating bank deposits. However, the AO was not satisfied as the assessee failed to produce the depositors and the bank denied designating the assessee as a CSP.
What were the issues?
Whether the deposits in the assessee's bank account were unexplained income. Whether additional evidence should be admitted for a proper adjudication of the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA No. 37-C-2015 M/s Oswal Woolen Mills, Ludhiana 2
13,87,400/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account of
the assessee.
Brief facts relating to the issue are that the Assessing Officer
during the course of assessment proceedings noted that there were
various cash deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee
maintained with State Bank of India, Sanewal totaling Rs. 13,87,400/-.
When asked to explain in this respect, the assessee submitted that
assessee during the year had carried out activity as a ‘Customer Service
Provider’ (in short ‘CSP’). The assessee explained that rural persons
tender their savings to the assessee for further sending / crediting the
amount to their accounts or accounts of the family members as they feel
inconvenient to stand in line for long time or when there is connectivity
problem or server of the bank is down / out of order. However, the
Assessing Officer did not get satisfied with the above reply of the
assessee. He further noted that the assessee had failed to produce the
persons from which he had allegedly received the money for further
depositing in their bank accounts. He further noted that the enquires
made by him from the State Bank of India, Sanewal revealed that the
assessee was not designated ‘CSP’ of the bank. The Assessing Officer,
therefore, held that the aforesaid deposits totaling a sum of Rs.
18.37,000/- was ‘unexplained income’ of the assessee and added the
same to the income of the assessee.
ITA No. 37-C-2015 M/s Oswal Woolen Mills, Ludhiana 4
by the assessee from which it was not clear whether such letters were
given by the concerned persons to the bank or to the assessee. The ld
CIT(A), therefore, held that the assessee had failed to substantiate his
contention with reliable evince, therefore, upheld the additions made by
the Assessing Officer.
Being aggrieve by the above order of the CIT(A), the assessee has
come in appeal before us. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has
reiterated the submissions as were made before the lower authorities.
Apart from that, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also invited our
attention to an application dated 22.8.2018 for admission of the
additional evidences. It has been pleaded in the said application that the
assessee is a resident of Ludhiana which is an industrial town That
migratory labourers from the states of Utter Pradesh and Bihar and
other states work in various factories in Ludhiana. The assessee
provides them the service by taking small amount of deposits for further
depositing the same to their saving bank accounts / bank accounts of
their family members by charging a very small commission. It saves
time and effort of the laborers which they use for working overtime in
the factories. The assessee has sought to produce the additional
evidences in the shape of bank account statements of such persons to
prove that the amount in question had actually been transferred from
ITA No. 37-C-2015 M/s Oswal Woolen Mills, Ludhiana 6
assessment order in question prior to the stipulated date for filing of the
reply and evidences by the assessee. The evidences sought to be
furnished by the assessee go to the root of the case and, in our view, are
very much necessary to be gone through for proper decision of the case.
In view of this, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for
assessment afresh with a direction to the Assessing Officer to admit the
evidences sought to be produced by the assessee and pass the assessment
order afresh after duly considering the same. Needless to say that the
Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present
his case. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly treated as allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17.06.2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 17.06.2019 “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026