SHRI GAURAV PURI S/O SHRI OM PARKASH,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR
Facts
The assessee deposited Rs. 12,24,000/- in a joint bank account with his wife, which the Assessing Officer added to his income as unexplained. An identical addition was also made in the hands of the assessee's wife, who subsequently settled the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwash Scheme 2020. The assessee appealed, arguing against the confirmation of the addition by the CIT(A) and highlighting the settlement by his wife.
Held
The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the bank account numbers mentioned in the assessment orders for the assessee and his wife. Recognizing that the disputed amount had already been settled by the wife under the VSV Scheme, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to verify the bank account details with Kotak Mahindra Bank and delete the addition in the assessee's hands if it pertains to the already settled amount and no other unexplained deposit is found.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained bank deposits can be sustained in the hands of the assessee when his co-account holder wife has already settled the identical dispute under the VSV Scheme, and if there are discrepancies in the bank account details mentioned in the assessment orders.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 71/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12
Sh. Gaurav Puri S/o Sh. Om Vs. ITO, Ward 3(5), Parkash 221-A, Sodal Road, Jalandhar. Industrial Area Jalandhar. [PAN:-AHAPP5159Q] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Sh. Vikas Bhagat, Adv. Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 30.06.025 Date of Pronouncement 07.07.2025
ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal filed by assessee against order of Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act 1961, dated 19.12.2023 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward 2(1), Jalandhar, dated 18/12/2018, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. That the order passed by CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case.
I.T.A. No. 71/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2011-12
That the worthy C1T(A] has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 12,24,000/- regarding deposits in the bank saving fund a/c. 3. That the opportunity of being should be given to the Assesse. 4. That the A.O. has wrongly assessed the income of Gaurav Puri for Rs. 12,24,000.00 which is deposited in the saving Bank A/c No. 02560120015745. The specified Bank A/c is in the Joint name of Monika Puri and Gaurav Puri and the bank has submitted information u/s 133(6) for both the Joint Account holders separately. 5. That the assessment related to this income has already been made u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, by ITO Kunal Kumar, Ward- 3(5), Jalandhar in the name of Monika Puri having PAN No: BCJPP3324G 6. That the assesse craves to add or amend the appeal, before the same is heard or disposed off.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.12,24,000/- into his bank account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank, in account no. XXXXX15745, which was held jointly by the assessee himself alongwith his wife Smt. Monika Puri (who is separately assessed to tax under PAN: BCJPP3324G) by ITO Ward 3(5) Jalandhar. 3.1 In absence of any proper explanation in course of assessment proceedings, the said amount has been added back to the total income of the assessee in order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
I.T.A. No. 71/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12
The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority and appellate authority dismissed the appeal in absence of any compliance to notices issued from the office of the ld. CIT(A). 5. Now, the matter is before the tribunal on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal. 6. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that identical addition of Rs.12,24,000/- has been made by the AO Ward 3(5) Jalandhar in the hands of the wife of the assessee (the bank A/c being a joint) treating the said cash deposit as unexplained vide order dated 11.12.2018 passed u/s 144/147 of the Act 1961. (copy of order filed before us). 7. Against the said addition, which was disputed in appeal, Smt. Monika Puri (wife of the assessee) has settled the dispute under VSV Scheme for which order u/s 5(2) of the VSV Scheme 2020 has been furnished before us. As such, he prays that the addition in the hands of the assessee may please be deleted, because the disputed addition is already settled. 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but stated that he has no objection if the said addition is deleted after verification of records. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record. We find that from the assessment order dated 11.12.2018 and the VSV order dated 23.08.2021, apparently the disputed amount pending in appeal Rs.12,24,000/- has been settled by the wife of the assessee Smt. Monika Puri in her settlement
I.T.A. No. 71/Asr/2024 4 Assessment Year: 2011-12
application filed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwash Scheme 2020 and in fact the order u/s 5(2) of the Act 2020 has also been given effect to by the AO Ward 4(3), Jalandhar. 9.1 To draw a logical conclusion since this disputed addition is already settled under VSVA, then the addition made by the AO of the same amount in the case of the assessee needs to be deleted. 9.2 However, we observe that in the assessment order dated 18.12.2018, the bank account number as stated by the AO in the body of the assessment order with Kotak Mahindra Bank is 02560120015745, and the bank account number as quoted by the AO, Ward 3(5), Jalandhar in the case of Smt. Monika Puri, at Kotak Mahindra Bank is 389200210000104 & 389200210001631, which has created confusion in this case. 9.3 The ld. AR submitted that the sum total of the deposit is Rs.12,24,000/- in the joint account of the assessee and his wife, which is account number xxxx15745 and he said that the other two bank account numbers as mentioned by the AO in the body of the assessment order dated 11.12.2018 does not belong to the assessee or his wife and as such, is not at all connected with this case and has been wrongly quoted. As such, he requested us to remand the matter back to the file of the AO to make an inquiry with the bank and thereafter to allow relief to the assessee because the said amount Rs.12,24,000/- which was the matter in dispute has already been declared under the VSV and taxes paid accordingly.
I.T.A. No. 71/Asr/2024 5 Assessment Year: 2011-12
9.4 Considering the submission, we set aside the matter back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to cause necessary verification with Kotak Mahindra Bank regarding the bank accounts mentioned in the body of the assessment order, and if it is found that the dispute is in relation to the total deposit of Rs.12,24,000/- as stated by the assessee which has already been settled under the VSV and there is no other cash deposit in any bank A/c, (which might have been inadvertently stated by the AO in last para (pg-1) of the assessment order), then the addition made in the hands of the assessee is to be deleted. 9.4 As such, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per the above direction. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 07.07.2025 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order
I.T.A. No. 71/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year: 2011-12
