AMBIKESH KUMAR SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SINGRAULI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 70/JAB/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the assessment to the AO. It directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were from cash sales of Coca-Cola products in his retail business, after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 57,40,900/- in cash into his bank account. The AO made an addition under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE as unexplained cash credit, as the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account constitute unexplained cash credit under Section 69A, and whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity to explain the source of the deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Narendra Mulai Prasad, JC-1

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

1.

This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the order dated 18.03.2023 of learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred as to “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: -

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned lower authorities are vitiated on several grounds hence the same may kindly be quashed.

2.

That the order of the learned lower authorities passed are unlawful and illegal.

3. That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard.

4.

That the various findings of the learned lower authorities are opposed to the facts hence the same may kindly be quashed.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned assessing officer erred in making and the learned CIT Appeals in confirming the addition on account of cash deposit in bank account of Rs.57,40,900/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained cash credit.

6. That the above grounds are independent to each other.”

Page 2 of 7 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) was having information regarding the cash deposits amounting to Rs.57,40,900/- made in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was issued to the assessee but there was no compliance or representation on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, the AO proceeded ex parte to the assessee and framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. In the said assessment order, he made an addition of Rs.57,40,900/- to the returned income of the assessee and thereby assessed the total income at Rs.60,56,620/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the written submissions filed by the assessee are reproduced as under: -

4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue opposed the submissions of the assessee and contended that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain Page 6 of 7 and substantiate the source of the cash deposits made in the bank account. Therefore, authority below was justified in sustaining the addition.

5.

We have heard rival contention and perused the materials available on records. The assessee has filed bank statements of his account showing cash deposits at regular intervals during the year under consideration, along with payments made to Udaipur Beverages Ltd. It is stated that the assessee is engaged in the retail business of Coca-Cola products in Sidhi District, Madhya Pradesh, where transactions are primarily carried out in cash. The assessee has declared profit of Rs. 3,15,720/- u/s 44AD of the Act on a presumptive basis. According to the assessee, the amounts deposited in the bank account represent cash sales as made during the year in the normal course of business, wherein the commodities are largely sold on cash basis. Looking to the totality of the facts of the case, and to sub-serve the interest of substantive justice, we hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer who would verify the claim of the assessee by making necessary inquiry and make assessment afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/02/2026.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →