Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Rameshchandra Vasantlal & Co., had its appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2012-13. The addition was made to the firm's income, but the bank account where cash deposits were made was operated by the proprietor, Shri Rameshchandra Vasantlal Mehta, and the deposits pertained to his proprietary concern.
Held
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in the bank account were duly reflected in the Income Tax Return filed by the proprietor of the firm. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the hands of the firm.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made in the hands of a firm is justified when the bank account and deposits pertain to its proprietary concern and are already offered to tax by the proprietor.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
(Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rameshchandra Vasantllal & Co., Income Tax Officer, Vs. Main Bazar, Ward-1, At N PO Madhi, Bardoli. Dist. Surat, Surat-394340 [PAN : AADFR1395L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri K Gopal, AR Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“the CIT(A) in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.
In the present case, the addition has been made in the hands of the assessee- firm, which had already ceased to exist in the name of M/s. Rameshchandra Vasantlal & Co. The total cash deposits in the said bank account amounted to Rs.61,74,461/-. It was submitted before us that this bank account was operated by Shri Rameshchandra Vasantlal Mehta, and that the entire deposits reflected therein pertain to the proprietary concern of Shri Rameshchandra Vasantlal Mehta. A bank certificate to this effect was also submitted before us.
We have carefully gone through the records. It is an undisputed fact that the amounts deposited in this bank account have been duly reflected in the Income Tax
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.01.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Surat; Dated 22.01.2026 **mv आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु� ( ) 4. अपील / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध , , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर /DR,ITAT, Surat, 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Surat
Date of dictation …words processed by Hon’ble VP on his PC on 17.10.2025……………. 1. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …03.11.2025…………. 3. Other Member ……06.11.2025………. Date on which the app Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… 4.