Shri Amarjeet Singh , Sriganganagar V. ITO, Ward-3, Sriganganagar

ITA 6/JODH/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Amarjeet Singh against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner, which upheld the validity of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and sustained an addition of Rs.13,51,591 under section 69 of the Act concerning unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The primary contention revolves around the source of cash deposits, which the assessee claimed were received from M/s Aman Coloniser and Developer, but failed to provide evidence before the assessing authorities. The tribunal found merit in giving both parties an opportunity to further examine the cash flow of the mentioned entity.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122873 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV MOHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH: JODHPUR Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No.06/Jodh/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Shri Amarjeet Singh, C/o Rajendra Jain, Advocate, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5 th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Shriganganagar, (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFPPS0178H Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Bikaner, dated 08.10.2018. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in recording various finding in respect of validity of notice u/s 148 are contrary to the material available on record. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.13,51,591/- u/s 69 of the Act in respect of cash deposited in the bank account. ITA No.06/Jodh/2019 Shri Amarjeet Singh 2 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the documentary evidences and explanation furnished by the assessee and are on record. 3. The issue revolves around proving of the sources of cash deposits by the assessee before the Revenue authorities. The assessee submitted that the cash deposits were received from one entity, namely, M/s Aman Coloniser and Developer whereas he failed to produce any evidence before the Assessing authorities. Hence, we hold that interest of justice would be well served if any opportunity is given to both the parties to examine the cash flow of M/s Aman Coloniser and Developer. The assessee shall submit all the evidences in support of the claim before the authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22/09/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 22/09/2023 *dk* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR