MOHAMMAD SHAHID,BILASPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BILASPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 15/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Raipur06 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The A.O. is directed to verify the assessee's contentions and documents, conduct an inquiry, and pass a fresh speaking order in compliance with natural justice principles.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an illiterate individual running a furniture repair shop, deposited Rs. 12,68,800 in cash into his savings bank account, claiming it as business income. The Assessing Officer added this amount to his income, stating the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the deposits. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision without verifying the documents submitted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee in his savings bank account were adequately explained as business income, and whether the CIT(A) erred by not verifying the documents submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(4),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri S.K Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.02.2026Pronounced: 06.02.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

1.

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 12.11.2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is illiterate and he is running a small shop of selling and repair and maintenance of furniture. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that all the transactions have been made by the assessee in his business through cash and he has no current account and he used only savings bank account for his business. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that out of the income derived from selling, repair and maintenance of furniture, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.12,68,800/- in his savings bank account. In other words, the source of cash deposits were from his source of income as submitted/disclosed before the Department. The A.O opined however that the assessee has failed to explain the nature and source of the said cash deposits and accordingly, made an addition of Rs.12,68,800/- in the hands of the assessee.

3.

The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the nature and source of the cash deposit was not explained by the assessee upholding merely the findings of the A.O.

4.

I have heard the submissions of the parties herein and carefully perused the materials available on record. On careful perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it transpires that the assesse had made submissions a/w. various documents which were not verified and inquired by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 250 (4) & (6) of the Act. In order to balance the scales of justice, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the A.O to verify the contention of the assessee and factually decide through a speaking order regarding correctness of the contention raised by the assessee while complying with the principles of natural justice.

5.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set aside and remanded to the file of the A.O to pass fresh assessment order as per aforestated directions.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 06th day of February, 2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →