IMTIYAZ AHMAD KABIRI,KHANQAH MOULLA SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee's case was reopened for AY 2010-11 to verify cash deposits of Rs. 36,24,249 in two bank accounts. The assessee was non-compliant, leading the AO to add the deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition but erroneously referred to facts from AY 2011-12.
Held
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly considered facts pertaining to AY 2011-12 instead of AY 2010-11. Given this error and the assessee's willingness to substantiate the cash deposits, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the AO to conduct a de novo assessment.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the source of unexplained cash deposits. A procedural issue arose from the CIT(A)'s error in considering facts from an incorrect assessment year.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AMRITSAR PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.670/ASR/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Kabiri ITO बिधम/ C/o JK Sweets Khanqah Moulla Near Govt. Silk Factory Vs. J & K – 190002 Srinagar - 190008 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AUIPK-5708-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri P.N.Arora (Advocate) – Ld. AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 20-01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC dated 08-11-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 144 / 147 on 24-12-2017. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under. 2. The case of the assessee was reopened to verify source of cash deposits of Rs.36,24,249/- in two bank accounts. The assessee
remained non-compliant and accordingly, Ld. AO added the deposits as income from undisclosed sources. During first appeal, it was, inter- alia contended that the deposits were used for the garment business as carried out by assessee’s son. The deposits were nothing but sales proceeds of the business. The Ld. CIT(A) erroneously noted the facts of the AY 2011-12 from para-5 onwards and confirmed the impugned addition which is the grievance of the assessee. 3. From the findings of Ld. CIT(A), it is clear that Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously gone by the facts of AY 2011-12 whereas the impugned assessment year is AY 2010-11. The Ld. AR has also stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate the source of cash deposits. Considering the same, we set aside the impugned order and since the assessment has been framed on best judgment basis, we direct Ld. AO to frame de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. 4. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20-01-2026 आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT 4. ववभागीयप्रवतवनवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AMRITSAR
