BIBEKANANDA GOSWAMI,PURULIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), , PURULIA

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 30.09.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 1.1 In this case an addition of Rs. 1,91,65,967/- has been made in the hands of the assessee representing cash deposits, interest income and a cash withdrawal. 1.2 This matter was carried before the Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee could not succeed on the basis of following finding: “In appeal, the assessee has reiterated his submission that "the SBI has issued Clarificatory letters and corrigendum rectifying their inadvertent mistake".

2
Bibekananda Goswami

This is the crux of their case. It is, however, noted that SBI, Purulia has stated in a letter that ". Initially PAN number in the mentioned account was recorded in the name of an individual which later on after submission of actual PAN by them in the name of society have been changed...."
It is clear from the aforesaid that there is no inadvertent action on the part of the Bank and that the assessee was involved in the transactions under consideration.
It is clear finding recorded by the AO that though the society had a PAN which was issued in FY 2016-17, all transactions in the account for the period under consideration that is FY 2017-18 i.e AY 2018-19 have been made on the name of the assessee and on the PAN of the assessee and thus it is crystal clear that the assessee was involved in the transaction under consideration.
In the above facts, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the AO.
Grounds of appeal are accordingly dismissed.”
1.3
Aggrieved with this action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT with the following grounds:
“1. For that Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on Facts by confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act based on inadequate enquiry, without application of mind without any credible material evidence with the A.O. The assessee had not any transaction in his own during the F.Y. The A.O. came to conclusion passing the order without applying his mind is wrong, impractical and against the principal of fair and natural justice and which cannot be sustained and has to be deleted.
2. For that Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on Facts by confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. the determination of Income of Rs. 1,91,65,967/-u/s 69A of the I.T. Act,
1961 based on improper and erroneous documents, without giving cognizance to evidence and submission filed by the appellant. The A.O. came to conclusion passing the order without applying his mind is wrong, impractical and against the principal of fair and natural justice and which cannot be sustained and has to be deleted.
3. For that Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on Facts by not considering the facts that wrong Income has been assessed in wrong hands and the addition u/s 69A of Rs. 1,9165,967/- and invocation of section 115BBE is wrong and bad in law. Such action of the AO has to be deleted.
4. That the appellant craves leave to raise any other ground or grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
2. Before us, the Ld. AR took us through the facts of the case with the help of a paper book. It has been averred that the assessee is a salaried employee whose PAN was used by one Balarampur Thana Large Sized Co- operative Agri Marketing Society Limited, Balarampur, Purulia to open an account in SBI. It has been pointed out that in the bank statement of 3
Bibekananda Goswami account (placed in the paper book). It is clearly mentioned that the assessee is not the beneficial owner of the said account. It was explained that all the transactions in the said bank account belong to the Balarampur Thana
Society and not to the assessee, who was merely a salaried person having a marginal income.
2.1
Per contra, the Ld. DR pointed out that there was no return of income filed by the said Balarampur Thana Society and hence considering that the assessee’s PAN was used, it deserved to be presumed that he was the beneficial owner of the impugned transactions.
3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the records before us. From a perusal of the bank statement, it is clear that the assessee’s claim that he is not mentioned as an account holder in the impugned bank statement, is prima facie correct. However, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely gone by the findings given by the Ld.
AO and has not cared to enquire further about the genuineness, or otherwise, of the claim made by the assessee that he is not the beneficial owner of the impugned transactions. We accordingly, deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for giving an opportunity to the assessee to present his case. We would also expect that the Ld. AO would conduct enquiries with Balarampur Thana Society regarding the real ownership of the bank account which has been held to be belonging to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and conducting necessary enquiries as directed by us.
4. In result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4
Bibekananda Goswami

Order pronounced on 17.07.2025 (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated: 17.07.2025
AK, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Bibekananda Goswami
2. ITO, Ward-3(2), Purulia
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT

////
By order