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

(A)
This appeal vide I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 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.

Appellant by None
Respondent by Shri R.R.N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024
Assessment Year:2012-13
2

(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:

I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024
Assessment Year:2012-13
3

I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024
Assessment Year:2012-13
4

(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 I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024
Assessment Year:2012-13
5

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) .
Dated:11/11/2025
*Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. Concerned CIT
4. D.R., I.T.A.T.