Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Dish-TV recharge shop owner, filed its return disclosing an income of ₹3,04,524. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on a cash deposit of ₹2.05 crores in a bank account. The assessee claimed they did not have such an account and that the mentioned account was a current account with Corporation Bank, not a savings account with State Bank of India as suggested by the AO.
Held
The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer erroneously referred to the savings bank account but examined transactions from the current account. Furthermore, the figure of ₹2.05 crores was not found in any produced bank accounts. Considering this was an ex parte order before the AO and CIT(A), the tribunal restored the issues to the AO for readjudication to ensure fair opportunity for the assessee.
Key Issues
Discrepancy in bank account details used by AO for reopening assessment and the actual bank account provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
IT Act sections
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 06/01/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10165834 dated 27/09/2023 for the A.Y. 2015-16.
Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri R.C. Marndi, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is operating a small Dish-TV Recharge shop. It was a submission that the assessee had filed its return of income disclosing an income of ₹ 3,04,524/-. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment of the assessee on the ground that there was cash deposit of ₹ 2.05 crores in the bank account No. 62282357559 maintained with corporation Bank, Hazaribagh. It was a submission that the assessee does not have such an account with Corporation Bank. It was a submission that the account of the assessee with Corporation Pradeep Kr Narsaria vs ITO Bank is a Current Account having account No. CBCA/01/000152. It was a submission that the said bank account number referred to by the Assessing Officer is the savings bank account of the assessee with the State Bank of India, Lalpur. It was a submission that the cash deposits in the said Corporation Bank was amount of ₹ 1,26,87,955/-. It was a submission that there was no cash deposit in the savings bank account of the assessee with the State Bank of India. It was a submission that the reasons recorded for the reopening are invalid and the assessment is liable to be quashed. The ld. AR has placed before us the copy of his current account with Corporation Bank which reads as follows:
The assessee's savings bank account with State Bank of India which reads as follows:
In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the course of assessment, there was non-cooperation by the assessee. It was also a submission that before the ld. CIT(A) also, there is non-cooperation by the assessee. It was a submission that if at all the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and readjudication.
Pradeep Kr Narsaria vs ITO 5. In reply, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that if the issues were being restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication, the legal issues as raised by the assessee should be left open.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that in the reasons recorded, admittedly the Assessing Officer has referred to the bank account number of the savings bank account but the transactions from the Current Account maintained with the Corporation Bank. It was also noticed that the figure of ₹ 2.05 crores arrived at by the Assessing Officer is not available in any of the bank accounts that have been produced before the Tribunal. However, as it is noticed that this is an ex parte order before the Assessing Officer as also before the ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. All the legal issues are left open.
In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order announced in open court on 06/01/2026.