RAJEEV BEHL,KALKA V. ITO, WARD-3, PANCHKULA

ITA 302/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rajeev Behl, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming an addition of Rs. 13,70,000 to his income for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the unexplained source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The appellant argued that the bank account in question was a joint account with multiple owners, and the cash withdrawals were higher than the deposits. However, the CIT (Appeals) rejected these explanations due to insufficient evidence, specifically the absence of complete bank statements. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the circumstances, decided to set aside the previous orders and remand the matter back to the AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712334 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 302/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rajeev Behl, 697 ZL, NH-22, Kalka, Panchkula. Vs The ITO, Ward – 3, Panchkula. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AASPB8804F अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : None ( Adjournment Application ) Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 17.01.2025 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. Though the assessee has taken five grounds of appeal but, the solitary grievance is that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,70,000/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.302/CHD/2025 A.Y.2017-18 2 3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that assessment order as well as order of CIT (Appeals) are ex- parte, though written submissions filed by the assessee have been taken note by the CIT (Appeals). A perusal of the submissions would indicate that AO found cash deposits during demonetization. According to him, the source of that cash deposit is not being explained by the assessee. In the written submission filed before the CIT (Appeals), it has been submitted that Account No. 10234300015090 is a joint account with Parwanoo Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. owned by five persons, namely; Sandeep, Nitin, Rajeev, Ajay and Ramesh. The total deposits are of Rs.13,50,000/- which have been added in the name of present assessee only. All the joint owners of the account are equally responsible for explaining the source of deposits. The second explanation given by the assessee is that cash withdrawal is much more higher than the deposits in the bank account. This plea of the assessee has been noticed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) but rejected on the ground that assessee failed to submit all the bank statements Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.302/CHD/2025 A.Y.2017-18 3 exhibiting cash withdrawals. The Cash Flow Statement submitted by him does not match with the bank statement demonstrating the available cash with the assessee before re-deposition, therefore, ld. CIT (Appeals) did not accept the explanation of the assessee. 4. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the orders and restore this issue to the file of AO for fresh verification and re-adjudication. It will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside both the orders and restore this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 29.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.302/CHD/2025 A.Y.2017-18 4 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "