RANJIT SINGH,ROPAR V. ITO, WARD-2(2), ROPAR

ITA 807/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Assessee, Ranjit Singh, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, which upheld the addition of Rs. 42,20,000 as income from unexplained sources under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee had deposited this amount in his bank account during the financial year 2012-13, coinciding with the sale of a property. The AO initially assessed this amount as income from other sources due to non-compliance with statutory notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal, after considering the documents presented, remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh examination of the documents to substantiate the source of the deposited amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787282 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR CHAUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 807/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ranjit Singh, Kiri Afghana Behlolpur Chamkaur Sahib, Rupnagar 141121 बना म Vs. The ITO, Warad 2 (2), Rupnagar èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: GMQPS5933A अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 12-11-2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 17-11-2025 आदेश/Order This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, dated 22.08.2024, for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under: - 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CITIA). NFAC in Printed from counselvise.com 2 Appeal No. CIT (A), NFAC/2012- 13/10109565 has erred in passing order u/s 250 dtd. 28.03.2024 as the same is in contravention of provisions of s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO of initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 42,20,000/-u/s 69 by erroneously holding the cash deposit in bank account to be from unexplained sources and treating the same as income from other sources. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the orders passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 233 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Printed from counselvise.com 3 Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with an Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making a prayer for condonation of the delay. The affidavit is available at pages 6- 8 of the paper book 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. We have considered the reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and, keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 6. In this appeal the main grievance of the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirming the cash deposit in bank account to be from unexplained sources and treating the same as income from other sources. 7. Briefly stated the facts of the case as culled out from the order of lower authorities are that the Assessee had made cash deposit in his bank account to the tune of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 4 42,20,000/- during the F.Y. 2012-13. However, the Assessee had not filed his return of income. The case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act and notice was issued on 31/03/2021 and sent through speed post. Further, other statutory notices were issued and served upon the appellant. But Assessee failed to make compliance. Hence, assessment was completed u/s 144/147 of the Act and income was assessed at Rs. 42,20,000/-. Being aggrieved to the order, the appellant preferred this appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the. CIT(A), however, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non-prosecution and upheld the addition so made by the AO. 9. The Assessee has drawn my attention to page 16 of the paper book wherein the Assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 42,20,000/- in his bank account. Thereafter, the Assessee has drawn my attention to page 1 of the paper book, which is a sale deed executed between Printed from counselvise.com 5 the Assessee and his father, Sh. Milkha Singh for a total consideration of Rs. 42.90 lacs. It was submitted that the amount which was deposited in the bank account was on the same date i.e. on the date of sale of the property that therefore, the same is duly explained. It was submitted that the bank account at page 16, which was the joint account of the Assessee along with his father and the entire amount was deposited in the bank account of the Assessee. 10. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and our attention was drawn to the order passed by the CIT(A). 11 I have gone through the order of the CIT(A). In the present case, the order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order as the Assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and did not submit the documents before the Ld. CIT(A). In my considered opinion, it is the duty of the Assessee to file the document before the lower authorities and satisfy whether the Assessee was the owner of the Printed from counselvise.com 6 entire amount or the amount deposited in the bank account was duly authroised by his father to be deposited in his bank account 12. In the light of the above, I deem it appropriate to remand the file to the AO with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the documents now filed by the Assessee before us afresh. The Assessee is also directed to file all documents to prove the source of the amount of Rs. 42.20 lacs to the satisfaction of the AO. In case the Assessee was able to demonstrate the source and his entitlements, the AO shall delete the addition. In the light of the above, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17-11-2025. Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) Judicial Member “आर.क े.” Printed from counselvise.com 7 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 सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "