RAMESH RANJAN,FARIDABAD V. ITO, WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

ITA 3530/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ramesh Ranjan, the appellant, who contested the assessment order treating his cash deposits as undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer had treated a total of Rs. 60,75,617 as undisclosed income based on non-compliance with notices and absence during the assessment proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued for the application of the peak credit method, previously accepted for the Assessment Year 2011-12, to estimate his income for the year 2012-13. The Department's representative supported the decisions of the lower authorities. The Tribunal, emphasizing consistency in tax assessments, directed the A.O. to apply the peak credit method for the Assessment Year 2012-13, thus partly allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790159 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PIYUSH TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIBHOR GARG
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 3530/Del/2025 Ramesh Ranjan Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3530/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ramesh Ranjan 2H-BC-36 Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony, Faridabad, Haryana PAN: AGSPR2035C Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Faridabad, Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Vibhor Garg, CA Revenue by Sh. Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 01/04/2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/10/2019 bytreating the entire cash deposits as at Rs. 60,75,617/- as undisclosed income of the Assessee. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on 24/05/2019 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24/05/2019, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3530/Del/2025 Ramesh Ranjan Vs. ITO 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the A.O. has not considered the peak credit for the year under consideration, however, for Assessment Year 2011-12, Ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to estimate the income of the Assessee on the basis of peak credit as appearing the bank account of the Assessee and restricted the addition. Thus, Ld. Assessee's Representative sought for direction to the A.O, to estimate the income of the Assessee on the basis of the peak credit appearing in the bank account. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Assessee was a non-filer for the year under consideration and made cash deposits of Rs.39,73,517/- in his ICICI bank A/c and Rs. 21,02,100/- in PNB A/c during the FY 2011-12. The Assessee not complied with any of the notices and remained absent in the assessment proceedings and accordingly, A.O. concluded assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 23/10/2019 treating the entire cash deposits as at Rs. 60,75,617/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. In first appeal, the assessment order dated23/10/2019 has been affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3530/Del/2025 Ramesh Ranjan Vs. ITO 6. As could be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12, in similar circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) ‘found it be fair and reasonable to estimate the income of the Assessee on the basis of peak credit as appearing in the bank account of the Assessee’ and accordingly restricted the addition. Considering the above facts, since there is no change of circumstances in the year under consideration, in order to follow the principals of consistency, we direct the A.O. to estimate the income of the Assessee on the basis of peak credit appearing in the bank account of the Assessee for the year underconsideration. Accordingly, we partly allow the Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee. 7. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th November, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 28 .11.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3530/Del/2025 Ramesh Ranjan Vs. ITO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "