SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3087/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. Considering the facts presented, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the lower appellate findings which held his cash deposits of Rs. 10,00,450/- as unexplained. The assessee claims that this amount was declared by his wife in her return for AY 2012-13, as the bank account was jointly operated. The Revenue contended that these facts were not verified.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits were unexplained, and if the wife's declaration and joint operation of the bank account are valid grounds for the assessee's appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 29.01.2026

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053555592(1), dated 05.06.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 27 days in filing the asseessee’s/Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the assessment as well as the lower appellate findings holding his cash deposits of Rs.10,00,450/- as unexplained; in Assessing Officer’s order dated 24.11.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, learned counsel invites our attention to the assessee’s second substantive ground that the very amount has been declared by his wife Mrs. Neelam Singh in her return submitted for AY 2012- 13 since the bank account in question had been run jointly by both of them.

4.

The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that all these facts have nowhere been verified in both the lower appellate proceedings. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →