Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a non-filer, had Rs. 56,01,800/- cash deposited and Rs. 2,82,832/- interest received in a joint bank account with his mother. The Assessing Officer reopened the case, and due to non-response, completed a best judgment assessment under Section 144, adding the entire amount to the appellant's income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, confirming the additions.
Held
The tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the individual contributions of the appellant and his mother to the joint account. The AO is directed to consider the additional evidence, including bank statements, and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring natural justice.
Key Issues
The key legal issues are the validity of the additions made under best judgment assessment for cash deposits and interest in a joint account, and the proper consideration of additional evidence regarding the co-owner's contributions.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Gwalior/10185/2017-18 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)") u/s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year |A.Y. 2009-10, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal.
The facts in brief are that the appellant, a non-filer. Assessing officer noticed that an amount of Rs. 56,01,800/- was deposited as cash in his Bank Account No. 30391664224 in the SBI Branch at Ashok Nagar. An interest of Rs. 2,82,832/- was also received on the aforesaid account. The case was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee remained unresponded. Statutory notice u/s 142(1) was also issued but for no avail. The assessing officer completed the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 58,84,630/-(Rs. 56,01,800/- +2,82,832).
Rajav Jain, Ashok Nagar v ITO, Ashok Nagar 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee first appeal.
Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer, ignoring the fact that the cash deposit of Rs. 56,01,800/- was pertaining to the joint account of assessee with his mother and the interest of Rs. 2,82,832/- was earned by the two co- owners by way of FDR.
Perused records. Heard Ld. representative for the appellant assessee and Ld. Sr.DR for the respondent revenue.
The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid addition of Rs. 58,84,630/- in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10, further ignoring the fact of wrong opening of the assessee's case u/s 148 of the Act? 7. Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee has the agriculture land of around 8 bighas. Assessee's mother Smt. Poonam Devi Jain also has 4 bighas. The assessee was running a dairy farm in his name and asseessee's mother was running a restaurant in her name, which was inherited by her from her deceased husband. The said bank account is maintained jointly by the assessee and his mother. The revenue's authorities have wrongly determined assessee's total income against the deposits held in the joint account. Further, submitting that the assessee had no taxable income. Prayed to allow assessee's appeal.
Ld. Sr. DR has supported the impugned order.
The aforesaid point for determination is a mixed issue of law and fact. It is undisputed that neither assessee nor his mother Smt. Poonam Devi Jain filed the return of Income Tax for the assessment year under consideration. Ld. AR has filed a paper book, which contains the facts of the case along with bank statements and other details to show that the assessee was not the sole depositor but deposited only a sum of Rs. 25,00,800/- and balance Rs. 31,01,000/-was deposited by the co- owner/mother in the joint bank account. It is a factum that AO had no occasion to consider the bank statements as the assessee remained unresponded during the assessment proceedings which was completed u/s 144 of the Act. Assessee filed additional evidence along with bank statements before the Ld. CIT(A) who called for the remand report from the AO. It further transpires from the perusal of the Rajav Jain, Ashok Nagar v ITO, Ashok Nagar impugned order that AO failed to submit any comment in respect of the additional evidences submitted by the assessce. However, opposed the admission thereof. Ld. CIT(A), admitted the additional evidence and held that the asseessee is the primary holder of the account followed by his mother Smt. Poonam Devi Jain, therefore held that the assessee is liable for the cash deposit in the joint account. We fail to understand that after admission of the additional evidence, Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same in the true spirit so as to appreciate the submissions of the assessee in respect of the cash deposit in the joint account as suggested by the assessee. In such circumstances, we remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer who shall verify the parts of the cash deposits made by assessee and his mother in the joint account and pass order a fresh in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to procure the relevant bank statements and make submissions before the Ld. AO. Needless to say that the Ld. AO shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid point is accordingly determined and the appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 10.