SATISH KUMAR SAINI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ALWAR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC”
JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1526/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13
Ward-1(2),
Alwar.

LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BWQPS1001N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kalra, C.A. (Thr. V.C.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 04/02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 02/04/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.
CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 22.10.2024
[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)/NFAC”] for the assessment year
2012-13, which in turn arise from the order dated 15.11.2019 passed under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, [hereinafter referred as “Act” ] by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar.

“5. DECISION:- Before me, the submission made by the appellant is carefully considered while disposing the present appeal. It is worth noting that the appellant frequently sought adjournments throughout the proceedings, citing various reasons.
through the appellant's submission, it could be seen that the appellant has primarily contested the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. After carefully considering the submissions made by the appellant, I find no merit in these objections. The AO, upon receiving detailed information regarding cash deposit of Rs
22,66,200/- during F.Y. 2011-12, observed that that the appellant had not filed return of income for the year under consideration. Based on this information, the AO formed a prima facie belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Consequently, the AO initiated the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued to appellant on 26/03/2019 after taking prior approval of Pr.CIT, Alwar and said notice was duly served upon the appellant through Speed Post vide No. 5362. Further, the AO claimed that the said notice along with other notices was duly served upon the appellant through registered email as well as speed post. It is important to emphasize that throughout the assessment proceedings, the appellant entirely failed to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposits in question. Moreover, the appellant remained unresponsive and did not provide any submissions or explanations, despite being given ample opportunity to do so. Further, the AO had tangible and sufficient reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment based on information that was not previously disclosed or considered during the original assessment. The appellant's argument that the reassessment is based on a mere change of opinion is legally untenable. The reopening of an assessment under Section 147 is justified when the AO has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to the failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. In this case, the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were grounded in concrete information indicating that certain income was not disclosed in the original return, thereby warranting reassessment.
Given these considerations, it is evident that the reopening of the assessment in the appellant's case is both legally valid and procedurally correct. The appellant has also argued that the order passed by the AO did not bear a Document Identification Number
(DIN), attempting to challenge the validity of the proceedings on this basis. However, this objection reflects a misunderstanding of the core issue at hand and appears to be a futile attempt to undermine the assessment Upon a thorough review of the case, it is evident that an intimation letter, duly containing DIN No. 20121034018, was issued to the appellant on 15/11/2019, the same day the order was passed. It is important to clarify that, as per CBDT guidelines, in instances where orders cannot be generated directly through the system, a separate DIN is issued to ensure procedural compliance. In this case, the DIN was properly assigned, and the procedure followed was in line with the applicable norms. Therefore, the appellant's claim regarding the absence of a DIN is entirely unfounded and cannot be upheld. The copy of intimation letter is re-produced below :-

…………………………………….
5.1. Considering the above facts and discussion, the objections raised by the appellant are without substance and do not undermine the legitimacy of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO. Accordingly, the appellant's contentions are dismissed, and the reopening of the assessment is confirmed.
5.2. Now come to addition made of Rs.24,96,200/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. With respect to addition, the appellant's merely claimed that the cash deposits represented re-deposits of previously withdrawn amounts has not been substantiated with any cogent evidence or documentation. It is pertinent to note that mere oral statements or assertions without documentary proof cannot be accepted as a valid explanation under the law. In fact, the appellant's failure to provide even the basic documentation, such as withdrawal slips, bank statements, or any other proof linking the re-deposits to earlier withdrawals, makes the claim untenable. This principle finds support in several judicial rulings, where courts have held that vague and unsubstantiated claims cannot be entertained by the tax authorities.
With regard to the addition made under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, the appellant has been utterly unable to provide any corroborative evidence to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposits. Section 69A deals with unexplained money, and the onus is squarely on the assessee to provide a credible explanation backed by evidence to substantiate the source of the funds. In the present case, despite repeated opportunities, the appellant has failed to discharge this burden, and no supporting documentation, credible evidence, or logical explanation has been provided to explain the large cash deposits. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P.
Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) are applicable here, wherein the Court held that if the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be unsatisfactory, the amount so credited may be deemed to be the income of the assessee, and no further burden lies on the Revenue to prove the source of such deposits. In conclusion, the appellant has been unable to provide any valid justification or evidence to counter the additions made by the AO, and the grounds raised in the appeal are without merit. In light of above discussion, I am inclined to agree with the addition of Rs. 24,96,200/- made by the AO.
Therefore, addition of Rs.24,96,200/- made u/s 69A is hereby confirmed.
Similarly, addition of Rs.59.329/- made by the AO on account of interest income is also confirmed. Further, the appellant has failed to furnish the documentary evidences of claiming deduction u/s chapter VI of Rs. 75,000/-, therefore, denial of claim of deduction of Rs.75,000/- is hereby justified.
Accordingly, all grounds raised by the appellant is hereby deleted.
5.3. In last ground, the appellant craves to add, modify other grounds at the time of hearing. Since no such option has been exercised by the appellant the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed as such.
6. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.”
were based on specific information of cash deposits amounting to ₹22,66,200/- during FY 2011-12, for which no return of income was filed initially. We further note that the AO obtained prior approval from the Pr. CIT, Alwar, and served the notice via speed post and email. The LD.
CIT(A) held that the reassessment was legally valid and procedurally correct, dismissing the assessee’s objections on service of notice and absence of DIN, observing that a DIN was duly allotted via intimation dated 15.11.2019. Further, we note regarding the addition of ₹24,96,200/- under Section 69A, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s action, observing that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to support the claim that the deposits were re-deposits of earlier withdrawals. The explanation was found vague and unsubstantiated. The reliance was placed on the judgment in CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC).
The additions of ₹59,329/- towards unreported interest income and disallowance of ₹75,000/- under Chapter VI-A were also confirmed due to lack of evidence. The appeal was partly allowed, by the LD. CIT(A)
15.11.2019 passed under Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, dated 22.10.2024 .We note that the primary contention raised by the Ld AR for the assessee pertains to the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147
well as email. However, from the record, it is noted that despite several allegations raised by the assessee regarding non-service and procedural irregularities, no clear finding was given by the Ld. CIT(A) on whether these contentions were independently verified with supporting records or merely accepted on the basis of submissions by the AO.
10. We observe that in the interest of natural justice, this aspect requires further factual verification.
(a) The assessee has also raised a legal plea that reassessment proceedings are invalid in absence of communication of “reasons to believe” and failure to provide the material forming basis for reopening.
While the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the reopening citing prima facie belief formed by the AO, there is no mention of whether the reasons were ever provided to the assessee upon request, which is mandatory in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.
v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)].
(b) With respect to the addition of ₹24,96,200/- under Section 69A, the AO has treated the cash deposits as unexplained money due to lack of any supporting documentary evidence from the assessee. The assessee claimed these were re-deposits of earlier withdrawals but did not substantiate the same with bank statements or cash flow summary.
However, it is also noted that the assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144 due to non-compliance and alleged non-service. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, but again did not verify whether proper opportunity of hearing was extended to the assessee after reopening.
(c) As regards the addition of ₹59,329/- towards interest income and disallowance of ₹75,000/- under Chapter VI-A deductions, it is evident that no opportunity was provided to the assessee to explain the same during the assessment, especially when the proceedings were completed ex parte. The CIT(A) has mechanically confirmed these additions without offering any relief or directing a remand.
11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, especially in view of the assessee’s consistent contention regarding denial of opportunity, improper service, and lack of supporting material furnished by the AO, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and strictly in accordance with law. The AO shall also ensure that all notices are duly served and reasons for reopening are duly communicated in writing to the assessee, if not already done.The Satish Kumar Saini vs. ITO
12
assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and furnish requisite details to substantiate his contentions.
12. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/04/2025. ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½

¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½
(Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 02/04/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Satish Kumar Saini, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत.
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 1526/JPR/2024}

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत