VIBHANSHU GOSWAMI,HARDOI V. ITO-3(3), HARDOI, HARDOI

ITA 54/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Vibhanshu Goswami against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed the addition of Rs.25,00,000 to his income for the assessment year 2012-13. The addition was made on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank. The assessee claimed that the amount was received from M/s Goswami Brothers, a proprietary concern of his father, and provided a confirmation to this effect. However, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected this explanation without conducting any inquiry with M/s Goswami Brothers or the intended recipients of the funds. The tribunal, upon review, directed the deletion of the addition, highlighting the lack of adverse material and the failure to substantiate the rejection of the assessee's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785047 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R.N. SHUKLA
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2012-13 Vibhanshu Goswami, C/o Sanjay Saxena, 12 Pratap Enclave Bisrat G.T. Road, Shahjahanpur. PAN:APHPG8481K Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(3), Hardoi. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 05/12/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058490391(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That the basis of initiation of re-assessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 of the At, its continuation and culmination vide order under section 147/143(3) of the of the Act dated 03/12/2019 is bad in law and liable to be cancelled. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, which is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.” Appellant by None Respondent by Shri R.R.N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (D.R.) Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2012-13 2 (B) In this case assessment order dated 03/12/2019 was passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the I.T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.26,83,990/- as against returned income of Rs.1,83,990/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.25,00,000/- was made on account of cash deposited by the assessee in bank. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to explain the source of cash that was deposited in the bank. Relevant portion of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2012-13 4 (C) At the time of hearing the appellant assessee was represented by none. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order and the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A); and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. It is found, on perusal of records, that the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer and before learned CIT(A) that amount deposited in cash in bank was received by him from M/s Goswami Brothers (proprietary concern of the assessee’s father). Moreover, confirmation from M/s Goswami Brothers was also filed by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) have unjustly and unfairly rejected the assessee’s explanation without even iota of evidence by way of adverse material against the assessee. Neither any inquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer/learned CIT(A) with proprietor of M/s Goswami Brothers; nor with the farmers for whom the amount was meant to be held as claimed by assessee, for payment against purchase of Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.54/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2012-13 5 material. In view of the foregoing the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs.25,00,000/-. (D) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 11/11/2025) Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Dated:11/11/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T. Printed from counselvise.com "