Case Number: ITA 414/DEL/2019
Appellant: Sandeep, Panipat
Respondent: ITO, Ward-4, Panipat
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Case Filed On: 2019-01-21
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-07-12
Pronounced On: 2023-07-12
Sandeep, a resident of Panipat, filed an appeal against the order dated 20.11.2018 of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Karnal, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The dispute in the appeal centered around an addition of Rs. 91,64,155 made by the assessing officer, treating the unexplained cash deposits in the bank as income from undisclosed sources.
The case was heard by the Delhi Bench ‘G’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), presided over by Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member, and Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member. The appellant was represented by Shri J.B. Sharma, Advocate, while the respondent was represented by Ms. Kajal Singh, Senior Departmental Representative (DR).
The assessing officer noticed that the appellant, Sandeep, had deposited Rs. 99,01,000 in his savings bank account during the assessment year under consideration. Consequently, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to the statutory notice, the authorized representative of the assessee attended the proceedings. The assessing officer treated the bank deposits as income from undisclosed sources and made an addition of Rs. 91,64,155 to the appellant’s taxable income, including Rs. 37,280 as interest income credited by the bank but not offered for taxation.
The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal, leading to the appellant filing an appeal before the ITAT.
During the hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. The Judicial Member, Shri Shamim Yahya, noted that the reopening of the assessment was based on the prima facie material indicating cash deposits in the bank account, which justified the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the validity of the reopening based on the information received regarding the cash deposits.
The appellant argued that the cash deposits were sourced from the sale of agricultural land, which was sold on the same day the deposits were made. The appellant provided copies of the sale deed and additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, to substantiate the claim. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed these submissions as vague and general without properly addressing the appellant’s evidence.
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to provide a detailed analysis of the evidence and merely upheld the assessing officer’s order in a non-speaking manner. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the appellant’s evidence and the sources of the cash deposits.
Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the assessing officer for a fresh examination of the appellant’s submissions and additional evidence. The assessing officer was directed to consider the matter afresh and pass an order as per law, providing the appellant with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Sandeep for statistical purposes, remanding the case back to the assessing officer for a fresh examination of the evidence provided by the appellant. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 12th July, 2023.
Members of the Tribunal:
Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member
Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member
For more information on similar cases and legal precedents, visit the official website of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of India.
Sandeep vs ITO: Dispute Over Unexplained Cash Deposits – ITA 414/DEL/2019
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform