ANAND AGRAWAL,BHOPAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 HARDA, HARDA

ITA 793/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anand Agrawal, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,61,200 as unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. The original assessment was made under sections 144/143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the A.O. added this amount to Agrawal's income, claiming it was from undisclosed sources. Agrawal contended that the money belonged to his employer, Rajendra Kumar Garg, and was used for project expenses in Harda, MP. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) and A.O. did not adequately consider the additional evidence provided, leading to the decision to remand the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397901 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH PORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY BANSAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 9 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.793/Ind/2024 (AY: 2012-13) Anand Agrawal, A-104, Siddharth Lake City, Raisen Road, Anand Nagar, Bhopal (PAN: AYWPA0184H) बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Harda (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Bansal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/ 1068426434(1) dated 06.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 Anand Agrawal ITA No. 793/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 Page 2 of 9 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 144/143(3)/147 of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was assessed and computed at Rs. 12,41,200/- [Income as per Return of Income Rs.1,80,000/- plus Rs.10,61,200/- addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits in his bank account (Union Bank of India)]. The aforesaid assessment order is dated 27.03.2015 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and Anand Agrawal ITA No. 793/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 Page 3 of 9 has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 144 rws 147 which is contrary to the material on records and provisions of the Act, unjust and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made u/s 69 of Rs. 10,61,200 by treating the deposit of cash in the bank account as unexplained. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO u/s 69 of Rs. 10,61,200 by treating the same as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources of income. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made u/s 69 of Rs 10,61,200 without considering the submissions made along with documentary evidences to explain the source of deposit of cash in the bank account maintained by the assessee. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made u/s 69 of Rs. 10,61,200 without admitting the additional evidences filed under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which go to the root of the matter. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions made along with documentary evidences in proper perspective 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any of the ground of appeal”. 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 05.06.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of assessee Anand Agrawal ITA No. 793/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 Page 4 of 9 appeared before us and interalia contended that the “impugned order” is erroneous, illegal, bad in law and not proper. The “impugned order” deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to 20 and so also a two pager brief synopsis in support of the case of the assessee. At the outset the Ld. AR submitted before this Tribunal that there is cash deposit of Rs.10,61,200/- in assessee’s bank account with Union Bank of India Branch, Harda, MP. The account is a saving bank account and bears Number:- 326802010014856. The cash money so deposited in the aforesaid bank account in fact belongs to his employer by name Shri Rajendra Kumar Garg who is also a partner with one firm called Shruti Construction, Bhopal. The cash in the aforesaid bank account has comes from RTGS as well as by cash too, which is added by the Ld.AO as his income. The Ld. AR interalia further contended that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,61,200/- does not personally belongs to him as the amount was deposited at Bhopal by his employer Rajendra Kumar Garg, however the amounts were withdrawn at Harda as he is resident of Harda where he was posted as Senior Supervisor Anand Agrawal ITA No. 793/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 Page 5 of 9 Cum Manager as site of work was at Harda at the material time and place. Our attention was drawn to page No.20 of paper book filed where appointment order of assessee is attached. The same is signed by one Rajendra Kumar Garg. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to page 16 of paper book filed where there is an affidavit dated 26.08.2020 of one Rejendra Kumar Garg wherein it is stated that he is resident of Bhopal, M.P. He is a Government Civil contractor. His firm name is Shruti Construction Company where he is a partner. It is further avered therein that in the year 2008-2009 his firm was allotted a “Road making project” and work was ongoing. That the assessee Anand Agrawal used to stay at Harda and was looking after the works which was being carried out by him at Harda. Since during the period of work he was at Bhopal, M.P hence expenses of labour engaged, repairs of machinery and other out of pocket and miscellaneous expenses were deposited by him at Bhopal so that same could be utilized by the assessee Anand Agrawal at site of works at Harda. It is also affirmed that he had deposited the money in saving bank account of assessee Anand Agrawal and that said amount is reflected in financials of 2011-12 in ITR so Anand Agrawal ITA No. 793/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 Page 6 of 9 filed. The Ld. AR then took us through the statement of UBI of assessee annexed to paper book. Attention was invited to ITR for A.Y 2012-13 of Shruti Construction page 17 of paper book. Basis these arguments it was contended that cash belonged to Rajendra Kumar Garg partner of Shruti Construction. Upon a query by Bench which was purely clarificatory in nature as to whether books of accounts of Shruti Constructions are placed on record evidencing aforesaid cash deposit. The Ld. AR said No. The Ld. AR then requested this Tribunal that all papers, documents, evidences filed before this Tribunal in form of paper book including documents, books of accounts etc. of Shruti Construction Company would be filed before Ld. Assessing Officer for verification if this Tribunal is inclined to remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh adjudication on denovo basis. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the Revenue interalia contended that “impugned assessment order” is u/s 144 of the Act. Further Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed additional evidence application of the assessee under Rule 46A of the Act. Hence there is no meritorious disposal of case and it would be just and fair that the matter be remanded back to Anand Agrawal ITA No. 793/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 Page 7 of 9 Ld.AO who can examine the issue afresh provided the assessee places all the records, documents etc. which are now placed before this Tribunal before Ld.AO including books of accounts and other papers of Shruti Construction Company as it is ultimately claimed that cash belongs to the said firm. 4. Observations,findings & conclusions. 4.1 We now have to adjudge and adjudicate the present appeal filed by the revenue on basis of the records of the case and contentions canvassed before us during the course of hearing. In brief we have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of the “impugned order”. 4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as presented to this tribunal by both Ld. AR and Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “Impugned Order” basis law and by following due process of law. 4.3 We basis records of the case, after hearing and upon examining the contentions are of the considered opinion that Anand Agrawal ITA No. 793/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 Page 8 of 9 “impugned order” has just not examined the merits of the case as contemplated by law u/s 250 of the Act. In addition “impugned assessment order” is too u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. AR has made out a case today on documents and papers which were not before Ld.AO. Ld. CIT(A) did not consider additional evidence application u/s 46A of rules in such a situation we are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order” should be set aside and accordingly we set aside the “impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of Ld. A.O to pass a fresh order on merits of the case which order should be reasoned and speaking one. The assessee is directed to place all the documents, papers, evidences in support of his case before Ld.AO including books of accounts and other papers and documents of Shruti Construction Company where these cash deposit are reflected or expended. The Ld.AO is directed to verify such documents, books of accounts so that a definite finding is arrived as to who is the owner of such cash deposit and income of assessee correctly assessed and computed according to law. Anand Agrawal ITA No. 793/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 Page 9 of 9 5. Order 5.1 In the premises drawn up by us (supra) we set aside the “impugned order” and remand the matter to Ld. A.O. 5.2 In result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 06.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक / Dated : 06/06/2025 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "