RAVI KUMAR JAIN ,GWALIOR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) , GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 11/AGR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 February 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were business transactions, even if not satisfactorily explained. The impugned additions were restricted to a lump sum NP rate of 8%, with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arose from proceedings under sections 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had added the peak balance in bank accounts as unexplained income, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee is a trader assessed at a 5% NP rate.

What were the issues?

Whether the peak balance in bank accounts could be treated as unexplained income, and if so, to what extent the addition should be restricted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWALShri Ravi Kumar Jain

Hearing: 10.02.2025Pronounced: 10.02.2025

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gwalior’s in case No. CIT(A)Gwalior/10428/2016-17 dated 26.11.2018, in proceedings u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Shri Ravi Kumar Jain 3. Mr. Srivastava vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly added the assessee’s “peak” balance in both the bank accounts; totaling to Rs. 14,88,927/-, as unexplained income in the course of assessment framed on 06.12.2017 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the fact that the assessee is a trader who has already been assessed at NP rate of 5% admittedly in the assessment order. And that does not have any other source of income at all. It is in this factual backdrop that we hold the assessee’s cash deposits as business transaction only although not satisfactorily explained in both the lower appellate proceedings. The impugned additions is therefore restricted to a lump sum NP rate of 8% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.

4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →