VIBHANSHU GOSWAMI,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(3), HARDOI, HARDOI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 54/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 November 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)1 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 Assessing Officer and CIT(A) unjustly rejected the assessee's explanation without sufficient evidence and without conducting proper inquiries. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order that confirmed an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made on account of cash deposited in the bank during the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee claimed the cash was received from M/s Goswami Brothers, but this explanation was rejected by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank was justified, and whether the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds was wrongly rejected by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 05/12/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058490391(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. That the basis of initiation of re-assessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 of the At, its continuation and culmination vide order under section 147/143(3) of the of the Act dated 03/12/2019 is bad in law and liable to be cancelled.

2.

That the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, which is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

(B) In this case assessment order dated 03/12/2019 was passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the I.T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.26,83,990/- as against returned income of Rs.1,83,990/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.25,00,000/- was made on account of cash deposited by the assessee in bank. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to explain the source of cash that was deposited in the bank. Relevant portion of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under:

(C) At the time of hearing the appellant assessee was represented by none. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order and the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A); and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. It is found, on perusal of records, that the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer and before learned CIT(A) that amount deposited in cash in bank was received by him from M/s Goswami Brothers (proprietary concern of the assessee’s father). Moreover, confirmation from M/s Goswami Brothers was also filed by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) have unjustly and unfairly rejected the assessee’s explanation without even iota of evidence by way of adverse material against the assessee. Neither any inquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer/learned CIT(A) with proprietor of M/s Goswami Brothers; nor with the farmers for whom the amount was meant to be held as claimed by assessee, for payment against purchase of material. In view of the foregoing the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs.25,00,000/-.

(D) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 11/11/2025)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →