BAL KRISHAN BHANDARI, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

ITA 567/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Bal Krishan Bhandari against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition of Rs. 12,25,000 to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was regarding the source of a deposit made by the assessee, which the Assessing Officer (AO) had deemed unexplained. The assessee argued that the deposit was from the maturity proceeds of earlier fixed deposits, a fact supported by bank statements and a confirmation from PNB bank. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, found in favor of the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal and deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717596 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT GARG; VIRTUAL
• Section: 144; 68

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च᭛डीगढ़ ᭠यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च᭛डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE ᮰ी िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव, लेखा सद᭭य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 567 /Chd/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bal Krishan Bhandari C/o Kulbir Singh, Advocate H.No. 1111, Harnam Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana-141002 Punjab बनाम The ITO Ward 7(1) Ludhiana ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAJPB0688C अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rohit Garg, C.A. (Virtual) राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2025 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 10/12/2024 pertaining to A.Y 2011-12, wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 12,25,000/- under section 68 of the Act. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the Affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the contents of which have not been rebutted by the Ld. DR, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen who has placed certain deposit in his savings account by way of FDRs in the earlier years and during the year under consideration, one of the FDRs got matured and the same was reinvested by way of fresh deposit. In this regard, our reference was Printed from counselvise.com 2 drawn to the assessee’s paper book wherein the copy of the bank statement with PNB has been submitted wherein on 07/12/2010, fixed deposit placed earlier got matured and the maturity proceeds amounting to Rs. 11,79,045/- was credited and out of the same, the assessee has placed fresh fixed deposit on 10/12/2010 amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- and the amount was debited from his bank account on 10/12/2010. It was submitted that the said factual position has also been confirmed by the PNB bank vide its letter dt. 21/04/2018. It was accordingly submitted that as against the figure of Rs. 12,25,000/- as alleged by the AO, there are only fixed deposit to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- which have been placed by the assessee during the year under consideration and the AO has erred in determining the quantum of deposit. Secondly, it was submitted that the source of such deposit are out of the maturity proceeds of the fixed deposit placed earlier which is evident from the bank statement as well as certificate issued by the banker. It was submitted that the assessee has infact brought such fact to the notice of the AO vide his submission which were filed on 26/04/2018 with office of ITO, Ward 7(1), Ludhiana and a copy thereof placed on record, however the same was not considered at all by the AO while passing the order under section 144 r.w.s 147 dt. 18/12/2018. It was accordingly submitted that since assessee has demonstrated through his bank statement that the source of fresh deposit were out of the maturity proceeds of the earlier deposit, the addition so made by the AO be directed to be deleted. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. From the perusal of the bank statement, I find that there is a opening balance of Rs. 40,093/- as at beginning of the year which has been carry forward from the earlier financial year and there are certain small deposits amounting to Rs. 7,250,/-, Rs. 840/-, Rs. 793/- and interest amounting to Rs. 1,767/- beside these credit entries, there is a credit entry of an amount of Rs. 11,79,045/- which is a maturity proceeds of fixed deposits placed in earlier years which has been confirmed separately by the PNB bank vide its letter dt. 21/04/2018 and out of the maturity proceeds, the assessee has placed fresh fixed deposit to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- on 10/10/2010. Therefore, as far as the source of the fresh deposit are concerned, the same is clearly evident from the bank Printed from counselvise.com 3 statement is out of the maturity proceeds of the earlier fixed deposit which got matured during the year. Secondly, it is observed that the AO has also brought to tax another figure of Rs. 25,000/- which is effectively out of the opening bank balance at the beginning of the year which cannot be sustained. Therefore in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, there is no legal and justifiable basis for holding the deposit in the bank account as unexplained. In the result, the addition so made by the AO is directed to be deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/08/2025) Sd/- िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) लेखा सद᭭य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 14/08/2025 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File Printed from counselvise.com "