NATTHU BALAJI CHARDE,NAGPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

ITA 83/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Natthu Balaji Charde against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs. 10 lakh as unexplained cash deposit in the assessee's bank account for the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer had initially added this amount to the assessee's income, suspecting it to be unexplained, as the assessee had not filed his return of income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition without the assessee's presence, leading to the appeal in the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed explained the source of the deposit as a contra entry from another bank account, which was not adequately investigated by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24392 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH UMAKANT SALVE
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.83/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Natthu Balaji Charde Raj Nagar Jabalpur Highway Kanhan 441 401 PAN – ACIPC3603P ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–3(4), Nagpur ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Umakant Salve Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 04/12/2024 Date of Order – 08/01/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 15/03/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. That, the Ld. A.O. has erred both in facts and in law. That, the Ld. A.O. was not justified for addition of deposit of cash in bank account as an unexplained deposit and should not be a part of income from other sources of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That, the Hon'ble CIT(A) had uploads the order passed by the Ld. A.O. without accepting the fact that the amount so deposited in the saving bank account were belongs to the appellant, which was a contra entry on dt. 04/07/2011 for a transaction amount of Rs.10 Lacs i.e. amount withdrawn from saving bank account maintained at Punjab 2 Natthu Balaji Charde National Bank amounting to Rs.10 Lacs and deposited in other saving bank account maintained at Central Bank of India amounting to Rs.10 Lacs on the same day. That, the assessee has committed only a technical breach of the provision of the Act and was of inadvertent in nature and not intentional one. 2. That, the Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete or rescind or any of the GROUNDS OF APPEAL on or before Final Hearing if necessary so arise. Kindly, stay the demand.” 3. The Assessing Officer’s case is that the assessee could not disclose the source of deposit of ` 10 lakh in saving bank account during the year under consideration, as the assessee did not file his return of income which resulted in addition of ` 10 lakh as unexplained cash deposit. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) passed ex–parte order by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, since the assessee did not appear. 5. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee is a Senior Citizen. It is undisputed that the Assessing Officer had information in his possession that during the year under consideration, the assessee deposited cash of ` 10 lakh in saving bank account. The allegation of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee failed to disclose the source of such deposit, as the assessee did not file his return of income also. It is the submissions of the assessee that due to lack of knowledge about technology, old age and suffering from certain health issues, the assessee failed to respond to the notices of the Department, as the notices were served by the Department through online portal and no physical copy of notice were received by the assessee. It was further explained by the assessee that the deposits were a contra entry i.e., amount withdrawn from saving bank 3 Natthu Balaji Charde account maintained in Punjab National Bank and deposited in other saving bank account maintained at Central Bank of India. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) failed to make enquiry for such deposit. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has clearly explained the source of such deposit of ` 10 lakh in saving bank account. If the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) had made proper enquiry, the source of such deposit by the assessee would have been established. Thus, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/01/2025 Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 08/01/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "