GNANESWAR KANTEKAR,YADAGIRIGUTTA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that non-filing of a return is not fatal if the assessee can explain the sources of deposits and their income is below the taxable limit. The AO is directed to re-examine the case and verify all credits and demonetization deposits.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for cash deposits during demonetization and unexplained credits in an SBI account. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing verification of some credits.
What were the issues?
Whether the non-filing of a return of income can be a bar to an assessee explaining the sources of their deposits. Whether the CIT(A) correctly restricted the verification of bank credits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, J.M: Present appeal filed by the assessee is arising from the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {Ld. CIT(A)} dated 11.03.2024 having DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062416985(1) and relates to Assessment Year 2017-18 2. The facts leading to the filing of present appeal are that the assessee is an individual and has PAN No. EHNPK9918M. For the year under consideration an information, revealing that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.10,09,487/-, has come into the possession of the Assessing Officer and hence on the basis of this information, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Since the assessee has not filed any return of income for the impugned assessment year, the Assessing Officer has issued a notice u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dt.12.03.2018 and directed the assessee to file the return of income. However, there was no response from the side of assessee. Thereafter the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act. During the best judgment assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that there are credits of Rs.95,79,297/- in SBI account of the assessee. Finally, the Assessing Officer made two additions u/s.69A of the Act comprising of Rs.10,09,487 on account of cash deposit by the assessee during demonetisation period and addition of Rs.95,79,297 on account of credits appearing in the bank account of assessee held with SBI.
Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and contended that the Assessing Officer has erred in treating the credits appearing in the bank account of SBI as unexplained credits and the Assessing Officer has also erred in adding the cash deposits by the assessee during the demonetisation. The Ld. CIT(A) after perusing the material on record partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in as much as the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to verify the source of credits of Rs.57,60,186 and sustained the remaining addition of Rs.38,19,111 + Rs.10,71,000.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal and at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in restricting the directions given with respect to the verification of credit appearing in the SBI account. The learned counsel for the assessee prayed that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to verify the source of entire credit as well as the source of cash deposits during demonetisation.
The Ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue relied upon the orders of authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that though the assessee has not filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year yet it is settled position of law that taxes are to be levied in accordance with law and if an assessee successfully explained the source of the amount deposited in the bank account and his or her income is below the taxable limit then non-filing of return would not be fatal to the fate of an assessee under Income Tax Act. Therefore, considering the totality of facts, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine the case afresh. We clarify that in remand proceedings the Assessing Officer will verify the source of all the credits of Rs.95,79,297/- as well as the source of Rs.10,71,000/- deposited by the assessee during demonetisation period.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th Sept., 2024.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
