BAL KRISHAN BHANDARI, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

PDF · subscribers
ITA 567/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 August 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the source of the fresh deposit was clearly the maturity proceeds of an earlier fixed deposit, supported by bank statements and bank confirmation. It also found the addition of Rs. 25,000/- from the opening balance unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no legal basis for treating the deposits as unexplained and directed the deletion of the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a senior citizen, challenged an addition of Rs. 12,25,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The addition related to a fresh fixed deposit of Rs. 11,00,000/-, which the assessee contended was a reinvestment of maturity proceeds from an earlier FDR, and an additional Rs. 25,000/- from the opening bank balance. The Assessing Officer had made the addition under Section 144 r.w. Section 147 despite the assessee providing evidence of the source.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in making additions under Section 68 for deposits in the assessee's bank account, including the reinvestment of matured Fixed Deposit Receipts and a portion of the opening bank balance, when the sources were explained and substantiated by evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ /Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bal Krishan Bhandari बनाम The ITO C/o Kulbir Singh, Advocate Ward 7(1) H.No. 1111, Harnam Nagar, Ludhiana Model Town, Ludhiana-141002 Punjab "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAJPB0688C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rohit Garg, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 10/12/2024 pertaining to A.Y 2011-12, wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 12,25,000/- under section 68 of the Act.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the Affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the contents of which have not been rebutted by the Ld. DR, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen who has placed certain deposit in his savings account by way of FDRs in the earlier years and during the year under consideration, one of the FDRs got matured and the same was reinvested by way of fresh deposit. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the assessee’s paper book wherein the copy of the bank statement with PNB has been submitted wherein on 07/12/2010, fixed deposit placed earlier got matured and the maturity proceeds amounting to Rs. 11,79,045/- was credited and out of the same, the assessee has placed fresh fixed deposit on 10/12/2010 amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- and the amount was debited from his bank account on 10/12/2010. It was submitted that the said factual position has also been confirmed by the PNB bank vide its letter dt. 21/04/2018. It was accordingly submitted that as against the figure of Rs. 12,25,000/- as alleged by the AO, there are only fixed deposit to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- which have been placed by the assessee during the year under consideration and the AO has erred in determining the quantum of deposit. Secondly, it was submitted that the source of such deposit are out of the maturity proceeds of the fixed deposit placed earlier which is evident from the bank statement as well as certificate issued by the banker. It was submitted that the assessee has infact brought such fact to the notice of the AO vide his submission which were filed on 26/04/2018 with office of ITO, Ward 7(1), Ludhiana and a copy thereof placed on record, however the same was not considered at all by the AO while passing the order under section 144 r.w.s 147 dt. 18/12/2018. It was accordingly submitted that since assessee has demonstrated through his bank statement that the source of fresh deposit were out of the maturity proceeds of the earlier deposit, the addition so made by the AO be directed to be deleted.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →