KISHORE SINGH SHEKHAWAT,BJS COLONY JODHPUR vs. ITO, WD-1(1), JAIPUR

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

डा0 एस- सीताल{मी] न्यायिक सदस्य एवं Jी गगन गाेयल] लेखा सदस्य] के सम{ा
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

आयकर अपील सं-@प्ज्A छव. 230/Jच्/2024
निधर्ारण वषर्@Aेेमेेउमदज ल्मंत रू 2014-15

ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए
120A 25B BJS Colony,
B/H RTO Office,
स्थायीलेखा सं-@जीआइर्आर सं-@च्Aछ/ह्प्त् छव. ठAम्च्ै 9577 F
अपीलाथीर्@Aचचमससंदज

प्रत्यथीर्@त्मेचवदकमदज

निधर्ारिती की ओरसे@Aेेमेेमम इल रू छवदम

राजस्व की ओर से@त्मअमदनम इल
: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

सुनवाइर् की तारीख@क्ंजम वf Hमंतपदहरू
21/11/2024

घाेषणा की तारीख@क्ंजम वf च्तवदवनदबमउमदजरू 07/01/2025

आदेश@Oत्क्म्त्

PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 29.12.2023 passed under section 250 of the I.T.
Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. CIT (Appeal) admitted that a cash of only Rs. 20,63,300/- has been deposited into bank instead of Rs. 10,09,28,800/- as the AO established in his order.

2
ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए Jवकीचनत.

16701587087 ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Jodhpur.
Rs. 2063300/-

16701587087 ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Jodhpur.
Rs. 755000/-

Total :
Rs. 1,09,28,800/-

The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 on 31.03.2021 under a reasonable belief that the income has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act, 1961 after recording the reasons. In response to the notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee has failed to file his return of income.
Since no response has been made to the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act and notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 17.11.2021 requiring the assessee to furnish requisite information. Further notices under section 142(1) of the Act on 30.1.2.2021 and 29.01.22 were issued and duly served to the 3
ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए Jवकीचनत.

assessee via mail. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices issued. Show cause notice dated 26.02.2022 was issued to the assessee providing final opportunity to provide requisite information/details. Since no response was made by the assessee, the AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 by making an addition of Rs. 1,09,28,800/- as assessed total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT (Appeals) considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT
(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us.

“ Assessee had filed an appeal with the CIT (Appeals) being aggrieved by the order passed by the AO. Appeal was partly allowed in assessee’sfavour. AO, under section 69A, wrongly added a sum of Rs. 1,09,28,800.00 in the total income, on account of being cash deposited into bank. CIT appeals admitted that actually, only Rs.
20,63,300.00 was deposited into bank. Assessee, during the course of appeal proceedings, submitted that this cash was deposited out of the earlier withdrawals (current & previous financial year) from the bank and out of his old savings which is duly reflected in his balance sheets prepared over the years. Balance sheets of earlier years were duly filed with return of income filed for the respective year. Balance sheets for the year ended
31.03.11, 31.03.12, 31.03.13 & 31.03.14 are also enclosed herewith for your reference.
The same was also submitted to the CIT (A) but he didn’t consider the cash balance generated year by year which is shown in the balance sheet. An abstract summary of cash account (deposit & withdrawn from bank) is shown below :-

Cash Deposits chart
ब्ंेी Wपजीकतंूंसे बींतज

4
ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए Jवकीचनत.

---------

2063300

----------

1980850

----------

5
ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए Jवकीचनत.

This is quite apparent from the above details, that assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 20,63,300/- while withdrawn Rs. 19,80,850/-. Opening cash in hand in his books of accounts was Rs. 9,04,558.00. Cash flow appears to be as under :-

Opening cash balance as on 01.04.2013

(As per balance sheet dated 31.03.2013)

904558

Add: Total withdrawals from bank during FY 2013-14

1980850

----------

2885408

Less: Cash deposited into bank during FY 2013-14
2063300

----------

Cash balance as on 31.03.14
822108

----------

ब्प्ज् (Aद्व कपक दवज मअमत बवदेपकमत जीम ंइवअम ेबमदंतपव.

Your honors are requested to kindly consider the above facts & provide relief to the assessee. “

“ A. Key points addressed in this submission:
1. Lack of Evidence Submission :
The assessee has not provided adequate evidence to substantiate the claims regarding the source of cash deposits.
2. Source of Income:
The assertion that the cash deposits stem from past savings lacks supporting documentation, which is essential for validating the claims made by the assessee.
3. Missing Tax Filings :
The failure to file ITRs for the year under consideration raises questions about the assessee’s compliance with tax obligations.

6
ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए Jवकीचनत.

Decision:

प् ींअम हपअमद उल बंतमनिस बवदेपकमतंजपवद जव जीम तपअंस ेनइउपेेपवदेए चमतनेमक जीम
material on record, and duly considered the factual matrix of the case as well as the applicable legal position for arriving at the following decision:
All the grounds of appeal are mainly against the above addition. It was stated that the total cash deposit in the appellant’s only bank account no.
16701587087 with Main Branch, ICICI Bank is only Rs. 20,63,300. I have perused the bank statement and found that the total cash deposit in the account is only Rs. 20,63,300. It is seen from the assessment order that the AO has mentioned the same Bank Account No. with the same branch having cash deposits of Rs. 81,10,500, Rs. 20,63,300, and Rs. 7,55,000 respectively. Thus, the AO has considered three different figures of cash deposits in the same bank
ंबबवनदजए ूीपबी बंददवज इम जतनम. Oदम बंददवज ींअम जीतमम कपfमितमदज इंदा ंबबवनदजे वf

7
ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए Jवकीचनत.

the same number in the same branch. Thus, the AO has made an addition without verifying the information from the banks. The bank statement gives the figure of cash deposit at Rs. 20,63,300 only. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 20,63,300 will be considered for further deciding the appeal.
The appellant has stated tht the source of cash deposit is from earlier withdrawals and savings. From the bank statement, the entries of cash withdrawals over Rs.20,000 are as follows :
 07.10.2013
Rs. 2,70,000
 16.10.2013
Rs. 40,000
 28.02.2014
Rs. 13,78,000
However, there is no cash deposit entry after 28.02.2014, therefore, the same cannot be the source of cash deposits made in earlier dates. The balance withdrawal of Rs. 3,10,000 can be considered as a source of the cash deposits.
Further, it will be reasonable to give an allowance of Rs. 2,00,000 for past savings. Thus, the amount of cash deposit of Rs. 5,10,000 is considered as explained, being out of cash withdrawals and past savings. Accordingly, the addition will be restricted to Rs. 15,53,300. The grounds of appeal are Partly
Allowed.

Submission
From the above decision, it is evident that despite the appellant’s assertion that the total cash deposits amounted to Rs. 20,63,300/-, the AO’s findings highlighted discrepancies that the assessee has not declared in the ITR and तमउंपदमक दवद-बवउचसंपदज जीतवनहीवनज जीम चतवबममकपदहे.

C.
The following is the submission that may be considered in favour of तमअमदनम वद ंबबवनदज वf बंेी कमचवेपजे.

a.
Lack of Filing earlier years’ ITR:
The appellant has not filed the ITR, computation, source of income, or details of the opening cash balance for earlier years, which is essential for verifying the claimed sources of income.

8
ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए Jवकीचनत.

b.
Absence of Current Year’s Source of Income :
The appellant has failed to provide the source of income for the बनततमदज लमंतए उंापदह पज पउचवेेपइसम जव अमतपलि ंदल बसंपउे तमहंतकपदह मंतसपमत
year income.

c.
छवद-ब्वउचसपंदबम ूपजी ैजंजनजवतल त्मुनपतमउमदजेरू
The appellant has not provided any justification for failing to file the ITR as per the provisions of Section 139(9) and has not responded to the notice under section148. This behavior reflects a disregard for statutory compliance and tax obligations.

d.
Lack of Deposits Post Withdrawal :
Following a cash withdrawal of Rs. 13,18,000 on 28.02.2014, there have been no deposits made after this date, further questioning the legitimacy of the claimed sources.

e.
प्देनfपिबपमदज म्अपकमदबम वित च्ंेज ैंअपदहे रू
Given that no source of income has been provided by the appellant during the year, the claim for the benefit of past savings holds no merit.

Prayer:
It is humbly submitted that the appellant’s failure to comply with tax regulations, coupled with the lack of credible evidence to support the claims made, warrants the rejection of the appeal. The integrity of the tax system must be upheld, and the revenue’s position should be maintained to ensure compliance
ंदक ंबबवनदजंइपसपजल.”

further submitted that as per books of account of the assessee, the appellant assessee was having cash balance of Rs. 9,04,558/- as on 01.04.2013. The ld. A/R has submitted a summary of cash account for the year under consideration which shows that the assessee was having Rs.
9,04,558/- as opening cash balance and has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 19,80,850/- from the bank account and hence total accumulated amount was Rs. 28,85,408/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.
20,63,300/- was deposited into bank in the financial year 2013-14 thus leaving a cash balance of Rs. 8,22,108/- as asyear end. In support of opening cash balance, the ld. A/R has filed copies of capital account and balance sheet of the assessee for the year ended on 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012,
31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 and has claimed to have been filed along with the Income-tax return.
Thus, from the perusal of these documents, the claim of the appellant assessee seems to be बवततमबज ंे जीम सक. क्/त् ींे दवज चतवकनबमक ंदल बवदजतंकपबजवतल कवबनउमदज. Wमए जीमतमवितमए जंापदह पदजव
account the above factual aspects of the matter and considering the documents, the claim of the assessee is admitted and the addition of Rs. 15,53,300/- sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is deleted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/01/2025. ¼xxu xks;y½

¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½

(Gagan Goyal)

(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi)
लेखा सदस्य @Aबबवनदजंदज डमउइमत न्यायिक सदस्य@Jनकपबपंस डमउइमत

ज्ायपुर@Jंपचनत

fnukad@Dated:- 07/01/2025. Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

10
ज्ञपेीवतम ैपदही ैीमाींूंजए Jवकीचनत.

आदेशानुसार@ठल वतकमतए

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत