DEBENDRA KUMAR BAL,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 14,11,990/- as unexplained income. The assessee's inability to produce evidence linking the cash deposits to their transportation business receipts led to the confirmation of the lower authorities' order.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened due to a cash deposit of Rs. 14,11,990/- in their savings bank account. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the assessee failed to provide any evidence to explain the source of these deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits in the savings bank account are unexplained income when the assessee fails to provide supporting evidence for their business origin.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2 IT A No .2 7/ CT K/20 15 Asse ssme nt Ye ar :2005-06
assessee filed the return of income on 20.2.2006 showing total income of
Rs.98,480/-, which was processed u/s.143 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case
was reopened u/s.147 by issue of notice u/s.148 dated 26.8.2009. There
was no compliance by the assessee to the notice u/s.148. Subsequently,
notice u/s.142(1) was issued on 17.9.2010 alongwith questionnaire seeking
production of books of account and other document and served on the
assessee fixing the case for hearing on 21.10.2010. Again there was no
compliance by the assessee. On 26/30/11/2010, a letter giving final
opportunity of hearing on 6.12.2010 was issued to the assessee. In response
to this letter, the assessee appeared with a time petition seeking 90 days of
time to appear. He was intimated that this was a time barring case and is to
be completed by 31.12.2010 and therefore, he should appear/produce the
documents called for in the notice u/s.142(1) vide letter dated 9.12.2010. He
was given final opportunity to produce the documents/evidences but there
was no response. On 16.12.2010, a letter was issued to the assessee
requiring him to show cause as to why the cash deposit of Rs.14,11,990/- in
IDBI, Bhubaneswar in his saving bank account should not be treated as his
unexplained income and added back to this total income. Still there was no
response by the assessee. Accordingly, assessment was made u/s.144 of the
I.T.Act. on 30.12.2010 adding Rs.14,11,990/- as unexplained income of the
assessee and total income was determined at Rs.15,10,470/-.
4 IT A No .2 7/ CT K/20 15 Asse ssme nt Ye ar :2005-06
in SB Account maintained with IDBI Bank was out of receipts from
transportation business of the assessee and, therefore, the entire amount
cannot be treated as income of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee
has disclosed income of Rs.98,480/- as income from transportation receipts
deposited in the bank account by the assessee. Hence, he prayed that the
addition should be deleted.
On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities.
On a query by the Bench that what is the evidence to show that the cash
deposit of Rs.14,11,990/- made in SB Account with IDBI bank during the year
under appeal are the proceeds from business of transportation of the
assessee, ld A.R. of the assessee expressed his inability to file any evidence
to show that Rs.14,11,990/- are the business receipts of the assessee out of
transportation business. I find from the orders of the lower authorities that
the addition has been made on the ground that no evidence could be produced
in support of the claim that cash deposits were made out of transportation
business receipts of the assessee in SB Account with IDBI Bank. As no such
evidence has been produced before me, I do not find any good and justifiable
reason to interfere with the order of ld CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and
ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026