VINEET KUMAR RITURAJ PAWAR,ALIGARH vs. ITO., WARD-4(1)(3), ALIGARH, ALIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.124/Agr/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Vineet Kumar Rituraj Pawar, Vs. Income-tax Officer, H. No. 17, Gali No. 2, Bihari Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh Puram, Melrose Bye pass, Aligarh. PAN : ATOPP7684A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 02.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2025

ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A)-Aligarh/10691/2019-20

by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18, wherein ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s appeal.

ITA No. 124/Agr/2021

return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.5,92,450/-

from salary. Case was selected for limited scrutiny for examination and

verification of salary income and cash deposited during the demonetization

period. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and

served upon the assessee. However, in compliance to show cause notice

dated 04.11.2019 issued u/s. 144 of the Act, the assessee submitted that he

received housing loan of Rs.28,32,500/- from Dewan Housing Finance in five

installments as under : 17th May, 2016 Rs.4,79,250/- 23rd June, 2016 Rs.3,51,450/- 12th July, 2016 Rs.3,67,425/- 12th September,2016 Rs.3,99,375/- 20th October, 2016 Rs.12,35,000/- Rs.28,32,500/- Total The assessee further submitted that on 19.11.2016, he deposited

Rs.8,39,500/- in Axis Bank and Rs.2,00,000/- in YES Bank being house loan.

It was further submitted that the aforesaid amount was initially paid to the

labourers, however, post demonetization period, they (labourers) refunded

the money due to demonetization and demanded payment in their accounts.

Assessee further submitted that he also transferred Rs.1,98,711/- to Axis

Bank to make payments to vendors against construction of house. List of

payments to vendors through bank was furnished before the Assessing

Officer. 2 | P a g e

ITA No. 124/Agr/2021

and as per disclosure in the income tax return, the assessee explained that

there was difference of Rs.2675/- only. Later on, the assessee changed his

earlier explanation and submitted before ld. Assessing Officer vide reply

dated 30.11.2018 that he had cash of Rs.3,45,000/- in hand at the mid-night

of 08.11.2016. He withdrew Rs.6,97,000/- from bank and claimed that the

cash disbursed to labourers was returned back which he deposited in bank

account. Ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the two contrary

explanations of the assessee and hence, made addition of Rs.8,39,500/- u/s.

69A of the Act as undisclosed and unexplained cash and Rs.2675/- as

undisclosed salary income.

confirmed the aforesaid additions and dismissed assessee’s first appeal.

revenue authorities were unjust in considering the deposit of Rs.8,39,500/-

as undisclosed income.

learned departmental representative for Revenue.

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 124/Agr/2021

assessee has taken two contrary defenses before the Assessing Officer and

failed to substantiate the nature and source of said deposits during post

demonetization period submitting that ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed

the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

salary of the assessee as per TDS return filed by the tax deductor and as per

the return of income filed by the assessee seems to have been admitted by

the assessee as per para 4 of the assessment order. Hence, the fact

admitted need not to be proved and on this count, we find that neither the

assessee has challenged this amount by taking any ground in Form-36 nor

any otherwise submissions have been raised before us. Hence, this addition

of Rs.2675/- is found just.

it is a factum that the demonetization period commenced from 08.11.2016

and said amount of Rs.8,39,500/- was deposited on 19.11.2016 in Axis Bank

with a cash of Rs.2,00,000/- in Yes Bank. The assessee submitted before

the revenue authorities that this amount was part of his home loan, which he

took from Dewan Housing Finance in five installments tabulated as herein

above. Authorities below have treated this cash deposit as part of home

4 | P a g e

ITA No. 124/Agr/2021

loan. However, ld. CIT(Appeals) has approved the action of the Assessing

Officer, who observed in the assessment order that the assessee changed

his version of defense, claiming that he disbursed the cash to the labourers

who returned the same back to the assessee due to demonetization period

and the assessee deposited the same in the bank account. We do not find

any substantial contradiction in assessee’s submissions made before Ld.

Assessing Officer either on 11.11.2019 against show cause notice u/s. 144

or the submissions made on 30.11.2018. It is also noticed that the authorities

below have not made the bank statements and other submissions of the

assessee in detail as part of the impugned order or assessment order.

Therefore, for want of verification of the source of aforesaid deposit, the ld.

CIT(Appeals) had no option, but to approve the assessment order. The same

is the situation before this Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

could succeed to procure the source of the aforesaid deposit, he shall be at

liberty to move an application to get this order recalled and get this matter

decided afresh on merits.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2025 *aks/- 5 | P a g e

ITA No. 124/Agr/2021