RAJ KUMAR PARMAR,SEHORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, SEHORE

PDF
ITA 406/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 February 2026AY 2015-164 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Gaur, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.02.2026Pronounced: 27/02/2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 06.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 17.03.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Page 1 of 4

Raj Kumar Parmar ITA No. 406/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16

2.

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the

assessee-individual did not file any return of AY 2015-16. The AO, on the

basis of information available in INSIGHT Portal of Income-tax Department

revealing cash deposits of Rs. 52,87,000/- made by assessee in bank a/cs

during the previous year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, completed the

procedure of section 148A and issued a notice dated 31.03.2022 u/s 148

and thereby initiated proceeding of assessment u/s 147. The AO also issue

notices u/s 142(1) and show-cause notice to assessee. However, the

assessee remained non-responsive. Ultimately, the AO passed ex-parte

assessment-order u/s 144 assessing the impugned deposits of Rs.

52,87,000/- as unexplained income of assessee u/s 69A. Aggrieved, the

assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) passed

following order and upheld the addition made by AO:

“7.2. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was provided many opportunities to explain nature & source of cash deposits made during the year under consideration. However, the appellant filed part reply stated that the assessee is running heavy good vehicle the amount received in Canara Bank is from running of heavy goods vehicle. Further no supporting documentary evidences were furnished by the appellant in respect of the heavy goods vehicle. In view of the facts discussed above, the nature & source of cash deposits made by the appellant remained unexplained. In view of the above facts, the addition made by the AO of Rs.52,87,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act is hereby upheld and ground 1 raised by the appellant is dismissed.” Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

3.

Before us, Ld. AR for assessee has filed a Paper-Book containing 31

pages wherein he has filed a copy of the submission made by assessee to

Page 2 of 4

Raj Kumar Parmar ITA No. 406/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16

CIT(A) alongwith copies of two bank statements of Canara Bank in which the

assessee made impugned deposits. Ld. AR has given a certificate in Paper-

Book that the Bank Statements are part of record available before CIT(A) &

AO. He further submitted that the assessee is engaged in running heavy

goods vehicle and the deposits in bank a/c were made either from business

receipts of running goods vehicle or by re-depositing the moneys earlier

withdrawn by assessee from bank accounts. He submitted that the entries

culminating into the total deposits of Rs. 52,87,000/- are spread over entire

financial year and it is not a case of lump sum or high value deposits. He

further submitted that the assessee is ready to make an effective

representation before AO, therefore the present matter ought to be

remanded to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication.

4.

Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a

request to give stricter directions to assessee.

5.

In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle

of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be

caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we

remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk

and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of

hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his

earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure

participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek

Page 3 of 4

Raj Kumar Parmar ITA No. 406/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16

unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass

appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

6.

The Ld. AR further agreed that to offset the revenue’s efforts in dealing

assessee’s cases, the bench may impose a suitable cost which shall be paid

by assessee. After a careful and judicious consideration, we impose a

cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by assessee to “Prime Minister National

Relief Fund”. The assessee shall submit proof of payment to the AO during

proceeding of fresh assessment.

7.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

to payment of cost as mentioned above.

Order pronounced in open court on 27/02/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 27/02/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 4 of 4

RAJ KUMAR PARMAR,SEHORE vs ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, SEHORE | BharatTax