OM PARKASH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-3, KHANNA

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ludhiana, in appeal no.
24/IT/CIT(A)-2/Ldh/2016-17
vide order dated
15.03.2018. Assessment was framed by Income
Tax
Officer,
Ward-3,
Improvement
Trust
Building,
G.T,
Road,
Khanna, for the ITA No.- 693/CHD/2018

Sh. Om Parkash
Page 2 of 9

Assessment Year 2010-11 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated
28.03.2016. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition at Rs. 3,51,19,200/- made by the AO at Rs. 4,44,69,200/- being unexplained cash deposit in Saving Bank Account No.- 0181-E05719-001 maintained with Indusind Bank, Khanna. For this issue, the assessee has raised the following grounds nos. 1 and 2, which reads as under:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessee and not Jaspreet Singh is the real owner of the saving bank
A/c No.0181- E05719-001 with Industrial Bank, Khanna as per Para
5.7 of his order.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.3,51,19,200/- out of addition of Rs.4,44,69,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of un- explained cash deposits in Saving Bank A/c No. 0181-
E05719-001 with Industrial Bank, Khanna as Para 5.7 of his order.”

ITA No.- 693/CHD/2018

Sh. Om Parkash
Page 3 of 9

of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,12,500/- on 20.04.2015. The AO noticed that the assessee made huge cash deposits in his
Saving Bank Account maintained with Indusind Bank, Khanna, during the Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment Year
2010-11 amounting to Rs. 4,44,69,200/-. Hence, the AO reopened the assessment by invoking the provision of Section 147 of the Act, and accordingly the reasons were recorded before issuance of the notice U/s 148 of the Act. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs. 4,44,69,200/- in his bank account
S.B. Account No.- 0181-E05719-001 maintained with Indusind
Bank, Khanna. The assessee filed an explanation for the cash deposits and, particularly, he filed certificate issued by Indusind
Bank, Khanna, which reads as under:
“It is to certify that Mr. Om Parkash R/o Village Salaudi Tehsil
Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana is having a Saving A.c No. 0181-
E05719-001 with our Indusind Bank, Surya Tower, GT Road,
Khanna Branch. It is to certify that an entry dated 10 Feb 2009
of amount Rs. 1,62,14,200 (One Crore sixty two lacs fourteen thousand and two hundred only) was wrongly credited in this account as this amount not pertain to Mr. Om Parkash as the same was reversed on next day 11 Feb 2009.”

The AO has not accepted the certificate issued by the Bank, and in response to the above certificate, the AO wrote letter no. 674 dated

ITA No.- 693/CHD/2018

Sh. Om Parkash
Page 4 of 9

The AO, discussing the various aspects, finally noted that the assessee has not tried to bring actual facts for completion of assessment order, and willfully and intentionally failed by not submitting evidence as well as affidavit of undated certificate issued by Indusind Bank in the office of the AO. Hence, the AO made addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 4,44,69,200/- as unexplained cash deposits U/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).
4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, and after considering the details, the CIT(A), restricted the addition to Rs.
3,51,19,200/- i.e. peak amount of cash deposits as against the ITA No.- 693/CHD/2018

Sh. Om Parkash
Page 5 of 9

addition made by the AO at Rs. 4,44,69,200/-. The CIT(A) has adjudicated this issue vide para 5.7 of his order at page 28 and 29. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the circumstances of the case. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the alleged deposits in Saving Bank Account No. 0181-
E05719-001, maintained with Indusind Bank, Khanna, was operated by him as name lender for one Sh. Jaspreet Singh and all the transactions in the said account pertained to Sh. Jaspreet
Singh. He argued that the AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and treated the amount of Rs. 4,44,69,200/-as unexplained cash credits. We noted that the assessee has obtained copies of deposit slips and deposit form and withdrawal transfer form and on a plain reading of these deposit forms, it can be seen that the signatures are completely different from the assessee, as mentioned on affidavit and other documents, i.e. order sheet entry of the Income Tax Department from deposits forms and other bank documents. As the assessee before us contended, that, on further enquiry and request made to the AO, the copies of the account

ITA No.- 693/CHD/2018

Sh. Om Parkash
Page 6 of 9

opening forms of the such one Charanjit Singh and other Arshpreet
Kaur, were obtained and further enquiry were made and found as under:
“i.
First it was observed that such accounts were opened on the very day i.e. on 11.02.2010 on which such amount was transferred from the alleged bank account of the assessee.
ii.
Secondly, on enquiry by the AO based on the accounting opening forms of such bank accounts, it was found out:
a. That one bank representative who introduced such person in the bank Sh. Amrish, stated that his signatures had been forged on the account opening form (statement copy at Pages
80-83 of the Paperbook) b. That the other bank representative, didn't appear before the AO and only a penalty was imposed for non-appearance.
iii.
Thirdly, on further deliberation, the ID proofs of the one
Charanjit Singh and other Arshpreet Kaur, attached in such bank accounts being their Driving Licences, were found to be not issued by the DTO, clearly showing them to be forged. The letter from DTO was submitted to the CIT(A) in the reply dated 25.09.2017 as placed at Page 128-133 of the PB, however the same was ignored while passing the order in case of the assessee.”

Hence, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this bank account was opened with the insider’s help and that the assessee was never the owner of these transactions, and even the signature did not match. He totally denied the transaction. When these facts were confronted to the Ld. Sr. DR, he only requested that the matter be remanded back to the AO and, AO can be directed to ITA No.- 693/CHD/2018

Sh. Om Parkash
Page 7 of 9

conduct a proper enquiry as regards to the real owner of the above account. For this proposition, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed, and hence, the matter is being remanded back to the file of the AO.
6. After hearing both the sides and goning through the circumstances & facts of the case, we are of the view that actually first it is to be ascertained, who is the actual owner of the alleged
Bank Account No. 0181-E05719-001 maintained with Indusind
Bank, where the cash deposits of Rs. 4,44,69,200/- were made.
The AO will conduct an enquiry, and in case required, he will take help of Forensic expert as well and, accordingly, will proceed according to the law. Accordingly, this issue in the assessee’s appeal is remanded back to the file of the AO.
7. As regards to the other issue, i.e. addition made by the AO of Rs. 3,60,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure incurred on the transfer of land to Sh. Jaspreet Singh, it is directly connected with the first issue. Hence, this issue exactly on the same reasoning remanded back to the file of the AO.

ITA No.- 693/CHD/2018

Sh. Om Parkash
Page 8 of 9

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02.01.2025 (KRINWANT SAHAY)
VICE PRESIDENT

Dated: 02.01.2025
Pooja/-