AMARJIT SINGH,PROP PRINCE ENGINEERS V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

ITA 325/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Amarjit Singh, the proprietor of Prince Engineers, who appealed against the order of the CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition of Rs. 10 lakhs under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was initially made by the AO, ITO, Ward-2(1), Jalandhar, following the assessee's failure to adequately explain the source of a cash deposit in his bank account during the demonetisation period. The assessee had claimed that the deposit was from an opening cash balance as of April 1, 2016, supported by figures from revised income tax returns for the assessment year 2016-17. However, this explanation was rejected due to insufficient evidence of significant cash sales to generate such funds. The tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present additional documentary evidence to substantiate his claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831154 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 325/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amarjit Singh, Prop. Prince Engineers, 411, Kalia Colony, Focal Point Punjab. [PAN:-AOHPS4382L] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Jalandhar. (Respondent) Appellant by None. Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 18.10.2023 which has emanated from the order of the AO, ITO, Ward -2(1), Jalandhar, passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, vide order dated 31.12.2019. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 325/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 2. There are four grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee relating to a single issue pertaining to an addition of Rs. Ten lakhs (Rs.10,00,000/-), u/s 69A sustained in first appeal. 3. The assessee filed an application before the bench, seeking time for furnishing of additional documentary evidences in support of which he proposes to explain the source of cash deposit in bank account during demonetisation period. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of hardware goods and pipe fittings, and has deposited an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash in his PNB A/c No XXXXXXX 50289 during the demonetisation period, but no return has been filed in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, even though a paper return was prepared and taxes duly paid on presumptive basis admitting turnover of Rs.43.17 lakhs ( supported by VAT returns ) and profits declared at Rs.4.81 lakhs, but no return could be uploaded in the portal due to illness of his accountant. 5. The assessment completed with an addition of Rs. Ten lakhs u/s 69A of the Act was challenged in first appeal, where the assessee explained the cash deposit to have been sourced out of opening cash balance available as on the first day of April, 2016, which is supported by the figures of closing cash of Rs.16.12 lakhs, declared in the revised income tax returns for the Asst year Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 325/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 2016-17, a theory which has been rejected by the Ld. first appellate authority in absence of significant cash sales to generate the funds . 6. Now before the tribunal the assessee seeks to file additional documentary evidences in support of his contention of availability of cash for which this adjournment application has been moved. 7. We are of the opinion that additional documentary evidences needs to be examined by the AO at the very first stage regarding its authenticity and genuineness and since the assessee has cooperated at all stages before the AO in assessment proceedings and also before the Ld. first appellate authority, with whatever documents available in his possession , trying to prove the source of his cash availability (though not up to the satisfaction of the revenue), we are of the view that one more opportunity may be allowed to the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposit, with additional documentary evidences, which he now seeks to produce. 8. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the matter is remanded for examination of fresh documents. 9. As such in the interest of justice we set aside the matter to the files of the AO for a fresh assessment, after considering the fresh documentary evidences which the assessee seeks to file in support of his contention and to fully explain Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 325/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 the source of cash deposit to the satisfaction of the AO and we direct the assessee to fully cooperate in the fresh assessment proceedings. 10. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. 12. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 22.01.2026 in the Open Court Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4)The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order Printed from counselvise.com "