SAMID AHMED,GARHWA V. ITO, WARD-3(5), DALTONGANJ

ITA 492/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Samid Ahmad, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 2,38,50,500 to his income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The addition was based on unexplained cash deposits in his bank account, which the A.O. claimed were not substantiated by any documentary evidence despite multiple opportunities given to the appellant to explain the source of these deposits. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal but upheld the addition due to non-submission of required documents. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, decided to remand the matter back to the A.O. for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for the appellant to substantiate his claims with appropriate documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 845688 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ranchi
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 492/RAN/2024 (Assessment Year-2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Samid Ahmad, Gosiya Feeds, Charka Pathal Meral, Garhwa-822114, Jharkhand. PAN No. ARAPA167AR Vs. ITO, Ward-3(5) Daltonganj Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Mukesh Kumar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Kailash Gautam, Addl. CIT, DR Date of hearing 29/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/03/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 14.10.2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: \"1. For that facts and circumstances mentioned in statement of facts, the addition of Rs. 2,38,50,500/- u/s 68 is fit to be deleted. 2. For the facts and circumstances mentioned in statement of facts, the order of the A.O. be set-aside. 3. For the facts and circumstances mentioned in statement of facts, the charged u/s 234B is fit to be deleted. 4. For that the impugned appellate order is bad in law and the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing .\" Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 492/Ran/2024 Samid Ahmed Vs ITO, Ward-3(5) 2 2. That fact of case, in brief, is that the case of the appellant for A.Y. 2018-19 was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason \"cash deposit\". Accordingly, notice 143(2) was issued to the appellant on 28.09.2019. Thereafter, various notices were issued by the A.O. to the appellant. In response of the same, the appellant filed reply on 22.03.2021. On perusal of the insight data, it was noticed by the AO that the appellant had deposited cash or Rs. 2,38,50,500/- in his current account in Vananchal Gramin Bank. The appellant, despite being asked by the Assessing Officer to explain the source of cash deposit has not submitted any documentary evidence regarding the same. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Assessing Officer on 19.04.2021. However, the same notice remained non-complied. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 2,38,50,000/- was made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act to the total income of the appellant. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the appellant filed appeal before the Id. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that multiple reasonable opportunities were provided to the appellant, but no documentary evidence has been submitted by the appellant to substantiate his claim. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 5. We have considered the submission and we think it proper to restore the issue after back to the file of A.O. for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appellant is also directed to provide all the supporting documents to substantiate its claim before the ld. A.O. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 492/Ran/2024 Samid Ahmed Vs ITO, Ward-3(5) 3 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order Pronounced in open court on 25th March, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 25/03/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "