BALVINDER SINGH S/O SH BHOLLA RAM RAKH HOSHIARI JASROTA RAJ BAGH KATHUA ,KATHUA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) KATHUA INCOME TAX OFFICE KATHUA, KATHUA

ITA 270/ASR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Balvinder Singh, the appellant, who contested the order of the CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi, which was based on an ex-parte assessment by the ITO, Ward-1(4), Kathua. The primary issue was the treatment of Rs. 10 lakhs deposited in the appellant's bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the CIT (A) dismissed his appeal without adequately considering the documentary evidence provided, which included receipts from jewellery sales and gift deeds from relatives. The Tribunal found that the notices for the assessment were incorrectly issued in the name of 'Salvinder Singh', leading to an ex-parte order, and that the documentary evidence was not properly verified by the lower authorities.

• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Amritsar
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Gift; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 270/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Balvinder Singh, S/o Sh. Bholla Ram Rakh Hoshiari Jasrota, Raj Bagh, Kathua-184143 Jammu & Kashmir [PAN: DGSPS 6936N] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Kathua Income Tax Office Kathua 18414, J & K (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 19.02.2026 23.03.2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 07.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-1(4), Kathua dated 14.12.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 270/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. There are six grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 and the main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. first appellate authority has not considered the documentary evidences that has been filed in course of appellate proceedings and has dismissed the appeal without verifying the genuineness and the authenticity of the documentary evidences so furnished. 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 10 lacs in his savings bank account maintained with J & K Bank A/c No. xxxxx20876 and it is further revealed that the said amount deposited in bank on 13.05.2011 has been transferred for investment in new fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 5 lacs each. In absence of any return being filed, proceedings were initiated u/s 148 on 29.03.2019 through speed post and in the e-mail id as per the portal. Subsequently in absence of any compliance on the part of the assessee to various notices issued by the AO, the assessment has been completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs. 10 (ten) lacs by treating the same to be unexplained deposits u/s 69A of the Act. 4. In course of first appeal, the assessee has filed submissions in the online appeal portal which has been considered by the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal has been dismissed by observing as follows: “7.6.1 In the present case, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- in his bank account(s), which has been treated as unexplained money. An assessee is found to be the owner of the Money appearing in his bank accounts. Though the assessee was found Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 270/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 owner of the Money but has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such Money found in his bank accounts. 7.6.1.1 The scheme of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would show that in cases where the nature and source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by the assessee is not explained at all, or not satisfactorily explained, then, the value of such investments and money or value of articles not recorded in the books of accounts may be deemed to be the income of such assessee. The provisions of section 69A of the Act treat unexplained money, bullion, etc., as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source not being known, such deemed income covered under the provisions of Section 69A of the Act in view of the scheme of those provisions, For application of Section 69A of the Act, two conditions are required to be satisfied. (i) assessee, Investment/expenditure are not recorded in the books of account of (ii) The nature and source of acquisition of assets or expenditure are not explained or not explained satisfactorily; The expression \"nature and source\" used in this section should be understood to mean requirement of identification of source and its genuineness. To explain \"Nature\" it would require the assessee to explain what is description of investment or expenditure, period and the manner in which it was done. To explain the source, it would require the assessee to explain the corpus or fund from where investment or expenditure has been met. 7.6.1.2 In the present case, the nature and source of such cash deposits made in the assessee's bank account(s) were not at all explained, leave alone satisfactory explanation. Further, for invoking deeming provisions under Section 69A of the act, there should be clearly identifiable asset or unexplained Money. It is amply proved beyond doubt that the assessees deposits appearing in his bank account(s) remained unexplained and the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- which deposited in the appellant's bank account(s) are identifiable unexplained assets. The limbs of Section 69A of the Act stands qualified in the case of the assessee, i.e. Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 270/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 the assessee was found to be owner of the Money: its nature and source is not identifiable.” 5. Now, before the Tribunal the assessee has filed the same documentary evidences by way of a paper book and the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the documentary evidences consisting of jewellery sale receipts (of the wife of the assessee) to one M/s Babbar Jewellers during the year totaling to Rs. 40,2,312/- which has formed a part of the deposit made by the assessee in the bank account has been disbelieved, without any verification or examination of the documentary evidences furnished. He further submitted that gifts received by the assessee from his relatives which are all evident by the gift deeds has been received out of bank withdrawals, from the donors whose bank statements are also attached and filed in the portal but the same has been disbelieved and rejected without any verification of creditworthiness of the said donors who happens to be relatives of the assessee as per explanations to section 56(ii)(x) of the Act and as such he prays that an opportunity should be allowed to the assessee to explain his case and the documentary evidences that has been submitted before the ld. first appellate authority should have been verified to judge its creditworthiness and authenticity before disbelieving the same. He further pointed out that no remand report has been obtained in course of appellate proceedings and no verification of documentary evidences has been made. Printed from counselvise.com 5 I.T.A. No. 270/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 6. Lastly, he also pointed out that the assessment order itself and all the notices issued from the office of the AO has remained unrepresented because the same has been issued in the name of one Mr. Salvinder Singh which is incorrect because the correct name of the assessee is Mr. Balvinder Singh, resulting in notices from the office of the AO, being returned unserved. He further submitted during the course of appellate proceedings, the gifts received by the assessee are all supported by gift deeds along with bank statement of the donors and the PAN to prove its authenticity and creditworthiness but the same has been rejected without any verification. As such, he prayed for an opportunity to explain his case afresh and for consideration all the documentary evidences in his proper perspective. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but he could not controvert that these documentary evidences filed by the assessee has been rejected without verification of its authenticity and genuineness. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that the assessment order has been passed in the name of ‘Salvinder Singh’ (which is wrong) and a copy of the notice issued u/s 148, followed by notice u/s 142(1), has all been issued in the name of Mr. Salvinder Singh which is incorrect and the notices as claimed by the AR, has gone back unserved resulting in an ex-parte order by the AO. We further note that the documentary evidences explaining the source of Printed from counselvise.com 6 I.T.A. No. 270/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 cash deposit has been furnished by the assessee by way of gift deeds accompanied by bank statement of the respective donors and also accompanied by evidence relating to sale proceeds of gold jewellery, but none of these documents has been examined or verified and the same has been disbelieved, rejected and brushed aside without verification. 9. As such, in the interest of justice, we set aside the matter back to the files of the AO for fresh assessment de-novo, to be conducted in the proper name of the assessee and all documentary evidences filed by the assessee in support of his claim may be verified regarding its authenticity, genuineness and creditworthiness, and the assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidences before the AO with full address for communication and to fully co-operate in fresh assessment proceedings. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 23.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Krinwant Sahay) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned Printed from counselvise.com 7 I.T.A. No. 270/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "