Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 76,31,100/- on account of unexplained money, alleging the assessee deposited this amount in cash across three banks. The assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings, but later claimed in appeal that one of the accounts did not belong to him and the cash deposit was generated from agriculture and kirana business. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to participate in assessment proceedings and presented the claim of denial of the bank account for the first time before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) should have facilitated the assessee in bringing on record material to support his plea. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to prove that a bank account, where unexplained cash deposits were made, did not belong to him, despite non-participation in assessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
69A, 147, 148, 148A(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 1324/JPR/2025
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
Assessee has preferred present appeal challenging order dated 01.07.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, whereby assessment order dated 04.05.2023, relating to the assessment year 2017-18, has been upheld, while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Buniya Amin, Kota. 2. Vide assessment order dated 04.05.2023, confirmed by Learned CIT(A), an addition of Rs. 76,31,100/- on account of “unexplained money” was made, while attracting provisions of Section 69A of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
Said addition came to be made, as the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 76,31,100/-in cash, in following three banks, and that the assessee had failed to furnish reply to the show cause notice issued for the purpose of assessment proceedings:-
Sr. No. Name of the Bank Account No. Amount (in Rs.) 1. The Kota Central Co- 27006111130014325 32,46,300/- operative Bank Ltd. 2. The Kota Central Co- 27006111130014324 33,01,300/- operative Bank Ltd. 3. State Bank of Bikaner and 5110624330 10,83,500/- Jaipur Total 76,31,100/- 3. Arguments heard. File perused.
Case of the Assessee is re-opened due to escapement of income
A perusal of assessment order would reveal that initially the information available as per record was about deposit of cash to the tune of Rs. 32,46,300/- only, by the assessee in his bank account maintained
Buniya Amin, Kota. with M/s The Kota Central Co-operative Bank Limited, during the year under consideration. Since, it was found that in the case of the assessee this much income had escaped assessment. That is how, case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act.
Notices U/s 148 and 148A(d) of the Act were issued, but the assessee failed to file return or to reply the other notices including the show cause notice dated 31.03.2023.
As is further available from the assessment order, it subsequently transpired that during the year under consideration, the assessee was maintaining another saving bank account i.e. A/C No. 27006111130014324 with The Kota Central Co-operative Bank Limited and yet another saving bank account with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur i.e. A/C No. 5110624330, wherein the assessee was found to have deposited in cash a sum of Rs. 33,01,300/- and Rs. 10,83,500/- respectively.
Thus, the assessee was found to have deposited in cash, with the above named banks during the year under consideration, in total a sum of Rs. 76,31,100/-.
Since the assessee neither furnished any reply to the notices nor furnish any details, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had deposited the above said amounts in cash with the above named banks, but the same remain unexplained, and as such, he proceeded to make addition of the said amount to the total taxable income of the assessee.
Assessee comes up before Learned CIT(A)
As notice above, the assessee opted not to participate in the assessment proceedings, despite notices. But, he challenged the assessment order by filing an appeal on 16.10.2023.
Record reveals that Learned CIT(A) noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee was presented 135 days after the prescribed period of limitation, but, he condoned said delay, and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits..
At page 3 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has reproduced the case of the appellant, while challenging the assessment order, wherein he claimed to be an agriculturist and running a small Kirana business.
The assessee pleaded that he was having only two saving bank account i.e. one with The Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the other with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.
In other words, the assessee-appellant claimed in that appeal that he was having only one account with The Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., and that he was not having any bank account with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.
As regards the deposit, the assessee claimed to have made deposit in the said two accounts out of the amount withdrawn from the said accounts. It was also claimed that the cash got generated by way of income from agriculture and Kirana Business.
Learned CIT(A) took into consideration the plea put forth by the assessee for the first time in Form No. 35 that account No.
However, Learned CIT(A) was not satisfied with the above said plea disowning the above said saving bank account No. 27006111130014324 with The Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. In this regard, he observed in the impugned order that only an unverifiable photo copy of a document purported to have been issued by the bank was produced before him, in the appellate proceedings; that said document was not produced during assessment proceedings nor subjected to any independent confirmation; no customer/master print-out, KYC records or sworn statement of any Bank Officer was furnished; that said bank account was traced on the basis of PAN linkage, and that the denial by the assessee in this regard was an afterthought.
As regards remaining deposit of Rs. 43,29,800/-, Learned CIT held that the same also continued to be unexplained.
With the above said observations, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Buniya Amin, Kota. 14. Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth before this Bench only one submission that the matter may be remitted so that the appellant gets an opportunity there to establish that saving bank account No. 27006111130014324 did not belong to him, and that a sum of Rs. 33,01,300/-, said to have to be deposited in the said account deserves to be excluded from computation of total taxable income.
Ld. DR for the department has opposed the submission on the ground that the assessee failed to participate in the assessment proceedings despite repeated notices, and came up with the above said claim denying connection with the above said bank account, only when he challenged the assessment order by way of appeal before Learned CIT(A), and also that no explanation has been furnished by the assessee for having remained non compliant with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer.
Ld. DR also referred to the observations made by Learned CIT(A) that the account of the assessee was traced on the basis of PAN linkage, and then submitted that at this stage providing of an another opportunity to the assessee of being heard may not lead to achieving of any purpose.
Buniya Amin, Kota. 16. It is true that the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings despite repeated notices. Admittedly, the assessee put forth his claim before Learned CIT(A) for the first time by way of grounds of appeal in Form No.
35. It is also true that the assessee-appellant did not take effective steps to discharge onus that the above said saving account No. 27006111130014324 has no connection with him.
But, in the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that Learned CIT(A) should have taken steps to enable the assessee-appellant to bring on record all the relevant material in support of his plea that he had no connection with the said bank account with The Kota Central Co-operative bank Ltd.
In the given situation, having regard to the seriousness of the issue involved, we deem it a fit case to afford another opportunity to the assessee-appellant to appear before Learned CIT(A) in order to establish his claim that he has no relation/concern with saving bank account No. 27006111130014324.
In view of the above observations, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose, and the appeal before Learned CIT(A) is restored to above original number with direction for afresh decision, after providing another opportunity to the assessee-appellant of being heard. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/12/2025. Sd/- Sd/-