Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Year : 2020-21] Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs ACIT (OSD)/ITO Vinod Complex, Dispensary Near S.M.College Road, Dist.-Sambhal, Chandausi Chandausi, U.P-244412 U.P -244412 PAN-AAEHV6315F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Assessee by None (Written adjournment) Date of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned appeal is filed by Revenue and cross-objection is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10443005 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of
At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, the appeal is decided in the absence of the assessee and on the basis of material available on record.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Law and on facts of the case by deleting the addition of Rs. 94,59,405/- made by AO u/s 69A of the Act after conducting proper enquiry who has made the addition after recording the detailed reasons for doing so in length in the order itself.
2. Law and on facts of the case by ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has made the addition after proper application of mind while framing the assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings could not establish the identity of the farmers claimed to have the source of cash deposits of Rs.94,59,405/- in Banks during the year under consideration despite being given various opportunities to do so then how the same may be considered as explained just on the basis of submission of Aadhar of few debtors.
3. Law and on facts of the case by ignoring the fact that assessee in its return of income for the year under consideration has declared its debtors at Rs 70,000/- which is totally in contravention of his statement during the assessment proceedings he claimed to have debtors amounting to Rs 94,59,405/- and even during the course of assessment proceedings assessee failed to establish the identity of all the debtors. Further, assessee's submission that all the farmers are 3 agriculturist as such they don't require PAN. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that each farmer of India is availing the benefit of Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojna by receiving Rs. 6000/- in aa year in his/her bank account directly and Government made this also mandatory to link PAN and AADHAR with bank account in order to receive money from any banking channel. Hence, in such scenario, the assessee's submission that the farmers being agriculturist don't require PAN sounds untenable.”
C.O.-168/Del/2025 4. Heard the ld. Sr Dr and perused the material available on records. The case assessee was re-opened on the basis of information available in Insight Portal and Preliminary Verification Report (“PVR”) uploaded, according to which there was a cash deposits of INR 2,03,72,050/- in the bank accounts of the assessee. The AO observed that assessee deposited cash in two bank accounts maintained with PNB wherein INR 79,49,400/- were deposited in current account bearing No. 0094002100017774 and cash of INR 1,24,22,650/- was deposited in saving bank Account No. 0094008700011077. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total turnover of INR 1,08,42,645/- on which profit @ 8.2% was shown u/s 44AD of the Act. The AO believed remaining amount of INR 95,29,405/- remained unexplained for which assessee claimed that the same was realization from old debtors. It is further observed by the AO that assessee has submitted a list of 102 persons (old debtors) and claimed that he is running a cold storage and farmers using cold storage in preceding years had paid due rentals in cash during the previous year which was deposited in the bank accounts. However, it is observed that in the return of income filed u/s 44AD for AY 2019- 20, outstanding balance of debtors as on 31.03.2019 was shown at INR 70,000/-. Similarly, in AY 2018-19 outstanding balance of debtors as on 31.03.2018 was shown at INR 5,18,268/- and assessee had claimed receipt of cash of INR 95,29,405/- from the old debtors. Therefore, AO, after reducing the opening balance of debtors of INR 70,000/-, made the addition of remaining cash of INR 95,29,405/- as unexplained.
C.O.-168/Del/2025 5. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) accepted the claim of assessee of realization from old debtors before whom assessee filed their Aadhar Card and confirmations. It was further claimed that since debtors are farmers, they do not have PAN card, nor they filed return of income. Since these details were not filed before the AO and once the assessee has himself shown opening balance of debtors of Rs. 70,000/- in the return of income filed for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20, the claim of realization from Debtors of any amount more than Rs. 70,000/- cannot be accepted. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate this fact while deleting the additions made by the AO. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restored the addition of Rs. 94,59,405/- made by the AO. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
Now we take cross-objection filed by the assessee in C.O No.168/Del/2025 [AY 2020-21].
In the C.O filed by the assessee, assessee has taken the ground of validity of jurisdiction u/s 151 of the Act further taken other cross- objections which are in support of the order of ld. CIT(A).
Before us, despite repeated opportunities, neither the assessee nor any ld. Counsel appeared and only adjournment requests were made. Therefore, in absence of submission made, the C.O filed by the assessee is hereby, dismissed.
C.O.-168/Del/2025 10. In the final result, appeal of the Revenue in [AY 2020-21] is allowed and Cross-objection in C.O.No. 168/Del/2025 [AY 2020-21] filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.11.2025.