GOPAL PRASAD KASERA,BANKA vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), BHAGALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 118/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 November 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was barred by limitation by 285 days. The assessee's counsel explained the reasons for the delay, and the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal observed that the information and details provided by the assessee's counsel required verification by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee engaged in the business of retail and wholesale of cycles did not file an income tax return for AY 2013-14. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings due to information about substantial bank deposits. The assessee eventually filed a return declaring a total income of ₹2,17,459/-. The AO observed a significant difference between declared turnover and bank deposits, leading to additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of suppressed sales and capital introduction are justified, and if the explanation for the difference between declared turnover and bank deposits is acceptable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Rastogi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 02.03.2024 for the AY 2013-14.

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 285 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.

3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the impugned assessment year. The assessee is engaged in the business of retail and wholesale of cycles and its spare parts. The learned AO received information that assessee had deposited ₹19,28,000/- in his bank account maintained with SBI during the instant financial year. Accordingly, the assessee was issued notice which was complied with. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act that income has escaped to the extent of ₹19,28,000/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 11.07.2018, which was complied with for filing the return of income on 25.09.2018, declaring total income of ₹2,17,459/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned AO observed that the assessee has a gross turnover of ₹3,31,86,593/-, on which the assessee has declared profit of ₹2,17,459/-. The learned AO noted that the books of account were audited and assessee has not furnished the audited report within the due date because the income was below the taxable limit. Finally, the learned AO noted from the bank account statement with SBI that assessee has deposited into the bank account cash as well as through transfers aggregating to ₹4,74,34,667/-. AO noted that there was a difference of ₹1,42,48,074/- between the turnover declared by the assessee in the books vis a vis total deposits in the bank account. Accordingly, the learned AO treated the total amount deposited into the bank account of ₹47,43,457/- as turnover and income was estimated at the rate of 8% which comes to 37,94,773/-. After allowing credit for income 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the appeal of the assessee also dismissed by the learned CIT (A).

3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the difference between the turnover declared by the assessee vis a vis amounts deposited into the bank accounts were stated to be on account of three reasons (1) collection from the sundry debtors/ loan from earlier years (2) proceeds from the son account (3) credits from receipt of sundry creditors as per the details below: -

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →