DINESH KUMAR KESWANI,JAIPUR V. ITO , WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

ITA 1318/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals filed by Dinesh Kumar Keswani against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-5(1), Jaipur, concerning the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues and similar facts. The primary contention was regarding the additions made to the assessee's income based on alleged unexplained cash deposits in his bank account, as reported by the department's Investigation Wing. The assessee argued that the additions were made erroneously, including duplicate entries, and provided evidence to substantiate the legitimate sources of the deposits. The tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing all three appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36714 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN SARSWAT
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1316 to 1318/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Keswani 208, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AUHPK3544Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Praveen Sarswat, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 26/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER BENCH: This common order is to dispose of the above captioned three appeals filed by the assessee, common issues based on similar facts are involved, and learned AR for the appellant and Learned DR for the department have argued all these appeals in one go. Assessee is feeling aggrieved by three separate orders, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2 ITA No. 1316 to 1318/2024 Dinesh Kumar Keswani vs. ITO 2. Assessee was before Learned CIT(A), feeling dissatisfied with 3 separate assessment orders, pertaining to assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. In two appeals, assessee has got some respite, but the third appeal has been dismissed. ITA No. 1316/JPR/2024 3. Vide assessment order, relating to assessment year 2015-16, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,78,000/-. Assessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the department that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 1,78,000/-, during said assessment year, in his bank account with State Bank of India. When the appeal was before Learned CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that while framing assessment, the Assessing Officer had added a sum of Rs. 40,000/- twice, and that he had actually deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 1,38,000/-. 4. Learned CIT(A) accepted said plea of the assessee that the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 40,000/- twice . In this way, Learned CIT(A) partly allowed said appeal, but, upheld the addition made u/s 69A of the Act for the balance amount i.e. to the tune of Rs. 1,38,000/-. ITA No. 1317/JPR/2024 3 ITA No. 1316 to 1318/2024 Dinesh Kumar Keswani vs. ITO 5. As regards assessment year 2016-17, assessment proceedings were initiated on the information regarding cash deposit of Rs. 1,75,000/-, by the assessee with State Bank of India, during year under consideration, and accordingly, assessment order was passed, making an addition of the said amount to the total income of the assessee. Learned CIT(A) took into consideration plea of the assessee that the Assessing Officer had wrongly included a sum of Rs. 45,000/-(adding the same twice), and, accordingly, upheld the addition only to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. ITA No. 1318/JPR/2024 6. As regards assessment year 2017-18 , on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the department, the Assessing Officer conducted assessment proceedings and made addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, having found that the assessee had deposited said amount during the year under consideration in cash, with the above named bank. Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee upholding the addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Arguments heard. Files perused. 4 ITA No. 1316 to 1318/2024 Dinesh Kumar Keswani vs. ITO 8. Ld. AR for the appellant has contended that the assessee could not appear in the assessment proceedings for want of service of notices, and as such, all the three assessment orders were passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that firstly notices u/s 148 were issued in respect of all the three assessment years, whereupon, the assessee filed returns of income, but without any change in the total income initially declared, and that is how, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. However, he did not comply with any notice, in respect of any of the three assessment proceedings, and as such, the Assessing Officer had no option, but to proceed ex-parte. 10. It is true that when notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, were issued to the assessee for different dates, thereby granting ample opportunity to the assessee, to participate in the assessment proceedings, and put forth his version, it was duty of the assessee to submit his response, the requisite information and documents, but the assessee remained non compliant. 11. It is true that the assessee participated in the appellate proceedings in respect of all three assessment orders, but, he has not furnished any 5 ITA No. 1316 to 1318/2024 Dinesh Kumar Keswani vs. ITO explanation for non appearance before the Assessing Officer despite service of notices. 12. The assessee claimed before Learned CIT(A), as regards cash deposits in the financial year 2014-15 that he had sufficient opening cash balance as per return filed on 31.07.2014, and that cash deposit of Rs. 1,38,000/- was made in the said financial year 2014-15 from cash available and from the income earned during the year. 13. In the paper book, the assessee has furnished bank summary of the account with State Bank of India, for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, cash flow statement as on 31.03.2015, and copy of relevant pages of the pass book issued by the abovesaid bank. 14. As per bank summary, opening balance of the assessee, as on 01.04.2014 was Rs. 2,17,234/- and cash receipts during the year were to the tune of Rs. 3,52,428/-, and as on 31.03.2015, the assessee had cash balance to the tune of Rs. 48,032/-. 15. As per bank summery, opening balance of the assessee, as on 01.04.2015 was Rs. 3,18,870/- and cash receipts during the years were to the tune of Rs. 3,52,900/- as on 31.03.2016, the assessee had cash balance to the tune of Rs. 47,015/-. 6 ITA No. 1316 to 1318/2024 Dinesh Kumar Keswani vs. ITO 16. As per bank summery, opening balance of the assessee, as on 01.04.2016 was Rs. 3,52,243.46 and cash receipts during the years were to the tune of Rs. 3,33,147/- as on 31.03.2017, the assessee had cash balance to the tune of Rs. 1,59,491.54. 17. Having regard to the above data made available by the assessee in the documents referred to above, in respect of each assessment year, we find merit in the submission put forth by Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee-applicant cannot be said to have failed to explain the source of cash deposit in each financial years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 18. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the department has not brought on record any material to suggest that any incriminating material was available with the department and against the assessee, which revealed that the assessee had concealed true facts regarding the source of the said entries of cash deposit. Having regard to the material relied on by the appellant before Learned CIT(A) and also before this Appellate Tribunal, it cannot be said that the assessee failed to explain the abovesaid entries pertaining to cash deposits or furnish source of the cash so deposited. 7 ITA No. 1316 to 1318/2024 Dinesh Kumar Keswani vs. ITO Result 19. In view of the above discussion, all these three appeals, in respect of assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are allowed. Copy of the common order be placed on the record of connected appeals. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 01/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 01/04/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Dinesh Kumar Keswani, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO , Ward-5(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1316 to 1318/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "