RAM KUMAR MAURYA,BHADOHI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), BHADOHI, BHADOHI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 140/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69
133(6) of the Act. Since there was no explanation from the side of the assessee with regard to the cash deposits of Rs.12,84,330/- as well as credit entry of Rs.1,78,444/-, totaling to Rs.14,62,774/- in the aforementioned bank account during the year under consideration, the AO treated the same as unexplained income
