NIRANJAN DWARI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SAIRENDRI DWARI,SUNDARGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JHARSUGUDA

ITA 516/CTK/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Niranjan Dwari, represented through his legal heir, against the order of the ld. JCIT(A)-4, Chennai, concerning the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue was the inclusion of substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts as income. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had considered four bank accounts, including one belonging to a partnership firm, M/s Kamleswar Filling Station, in which the assessee was a partner. The ITO estimated the assessee's income at 2% of the cash deposits, recognizing that funds were transferred to Indian Oil Corporation. The assessee contested this, claiming the transactions were related to the partnership firm, which had not filed any income tax returns. The tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the assessee's lack of cooperation and the absence of evidence supporting his claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711479 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANTH RAO B
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR SULTANIA

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No. 516/CTK/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Niranjan Dwari (Through legal heir Sairendri Dwari) M-61, R.R.I.T. Colony, rangadhipa, Odisha-770001 Vs. Income Tax officer, Ward-1, Jharsuguda, Odisha-768201 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AESPD2117D Assessee by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sultania, AR Revenue by : Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR Date of hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 17.07.2025 O R D E R PER PENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. JCIT(A)-4, Chennai in appeal no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070549892(1) dated 22.11.2024 for A.Y. 2014-15. 02. Shri Manoj Kumar Sultania represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual who is doing contract work and plying vehicles. It was the submission that the assessee was a partner in a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s Kamleswar Filling Station. The said partnership firm was running a petrol pump. It was the submission that the ld. AO in the course of assessment noticed that there were substantial cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The ld. AO had consequently asked the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 516/CTK/2024 Niranjan Dwari ; A.Y. 2014-15 assessee for the explanation. It was the submission that the ld. AO has considered four bank accounts. It was the submission that out of the four bank accounts, one bank account being the current account in IndusInd bank, Sundargarh, was in the name of M/s Kamleswar Filling Station, partnership firm. It was the submission that the bank account of the firm has also been considered for the purpose of determining the cash deposits and the ld. AO has estimated the income of the assessee at 2% of the cash deposit. It was the submission that the ld. AO has also recognized that the funds from the said bank accounts have been subsequently transferred to Indian Oil Corporation. It was the submission that the bank accounts of the assessee also included the contract receipts and the receipts from the plying three trucks in respect of which also the assessee filed its return and disclosed the income. It was the submission that the additions made in the assessment order are liable to be deleted. 04. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has not provided any details before the ld. AO. It was the submission that the ld. CIT (A) has considered the submissions of the assessee and has taken a stand that M/s Kamleswar Filling Station has also not shown any income nor has filed its return of income and had consequently confirmed the additions made. It was the submission that the order of the ld. JCIT (A)- 4, Chennai is liable to be upheld. 05. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order in the present case clearly shows that the ld. AO has brought out the 4 bank accounts in page 2 para 3 of the assessment order. The said current account in IndusInd bank, Sundargarh, which is being claimed to be partnership clearly has been shown by the ld. AO as belong to Mr. Niranjan Dwari, the assessee herein. Therefore, it no manner survives Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 516/CTK/2024 Niranjan Dwari ; A.Y. 2014-15 for the assessee to say that the bank account of the partnership firm has been considered. Now, a perusal of the assessment order at page no.3 of para 5 shows that even though the details were called for from the assessee other than seeking adjournment and no other details were produced. In para 8, the ld. AO categorically gave finding that the above accounts are not disclosed either in the name of the firm or in the name of the individual. The ld. AO recognize that payment have been made subsequently from the said bank accounts to Indian Oil Corporation. It is on this count that the ld. AO has been liberal in estimating the income of the assessee at 2%. This is a case which clearly shows that the conduct of the assessee is contumacious in so far as not providing the details before the ld. AO and now attempting to evade the payment of the tax by saying that the transactions belong to the partnership firm especially when the partnership firm has not filed its return and no evidence of having filed the return have also been shown before the lower authorities or before us. This is being so, as the assessee has not been disallowed any of the finding of facts as has been mentioned by the ld. AO in his assessment order and which have been retreated and confirmed by the ld. JCIT(A)-4, Chennai. We find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. JCIT(A)-4, Chennai. Consequently, the order of the ld. JCIT(A)-4, Chennai stands upheld. 06. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 17.07.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 516/CTK/2024 Niranjan Dwari ; A.Y. 2014-15 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "