VIJAY SINGH,SALARPUR V. ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR

ITA 393/JPR/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Vijay Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary issues in the appeal were the additions made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained cash deposits and unreported interest income. The AO had made additions totaling Rs. 6,30,910 to the assessee's income, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The tribunal noted the assessee's lack of compliance and evidence during the initial proceedings but decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782246 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK SHARMA; THRU
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 133(6); 80C

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 393/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2011-12 ShriVijay Singh Village & Post Office: SALALPUR Tijara, Distt: Alwar 301 019 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -1 (5) Alwar LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: CRQPS 8442F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 13.05.2022 for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The impugned assessment order dated 22-11-2018 passed u/s 147/144 is bad in low and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same deserves to be fully quashed. 2. Rs. 6,00,000/-:- The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- 69A on account of cash deposited in Bank made by the AO The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be allowed in full Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO.393/JPR/2024 SHRI VIJAY SINGH VS ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR 3. Rs. 30.911/-:- The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,911/- on account of interest received in Bank made by the AO. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be allowed in full 4. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B& 234C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding that nothing new or any evidence was furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 8 to para 11 of his order as under:- Findings 5. As per the details available on record, vide order dated 22.11.2018, the demand of the appellant for the A.Y. 2011-12 was created u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making addition u/s 69A of the I.T Act, 1961. 6. Assessment u/s 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in case of the appellant for the A.Y. 2011-12 was completed on 22.11.2018 by making addition of Rs. 6,30,910/- as income by invoking section 69A of the I.T Act, 1961. 7. Appellant has said the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was withdrawn from his account via multiple transactions and deposited again in the same bank account but could not furnish any proof to establish the same. 8. Appellant has received Rs.30,911/- as interest from bank which was added to the net Income. 9. Appellant has claimed deduction u/s Section 80C of the I.T Act, 1961 for the life insurance but as the appellant has not filed the return for the year concerned. Hence, the claim on deduction by the assessee does not stand. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO.393/JPR/2024 SHRI VIJAY SINGH VS ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR 10. Therefore, after going through the Assessment order and considering all the facts on record, the A.O. has rightfully made the addition of Rs. 6,30,910/- u/s 69A of the I.T Act, 1961 to the income and arriving at tax payable Rs. 1,73,590/-. Nothing new or any evidence was furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings also. 11. Considering the above mentioned facts the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.’' 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to adduce the documents required by the AO as to the total addition of Rs.6,30,910/- u/s 69A of the Act so that the issue in question could be settled. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld DR objected to such submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information available on record and information received from bank u/s 133(6) of the Act that the assessee had deposited Rs.6,00,000/- in his bank account maintained in Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank. Thus the Department had concrete and enough evidences that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.6.00 las in his bank account during the assessment year 2011-12 whereas the assessee had not filed his return of income (ITR) for the relevant year. Notices were issued to the assessee but the assessee had Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO.393/JPR/2024 SHRI VIJAY SINGH VS ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR not even made any compliance to these notices. Since the assessee had not made compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) and no details in respect of source of cash deposit had been provided. Thus, the final show cause letter was issued on 13-11-2018 mentioning specifically therein that in case of non-compliance the matter will be decided on the basis of material available on record and on merits u/s 144 of the Act and no further opportunity will be granted. The AO noted that the assesssee neither filed any details nor attended the assessment proceedings. Hence, the cash deposits of Rs.6.00 lacs remained unverified by the AO and he treated this amount of Rs.6.00 lacs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Further the AO noted that the assessee had received an interest of Rs.30,911/- on FDRs. Since the assessee had not filed his return of income and therefore, interest income remained untaxed. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs.30,911/- to the total income of the assessee as income from Interest. Thus the total additionsmade in the hands of the assessee is Rs.6,30,910/- by the AO. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not furnished any evidences to counter the order of the AO. Since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO.393/JPR/2024 SHRI VIJAY SINGH VS ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case for which a cost of Rs.2,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund when the assessee approach to the AO in the set aside proceeding. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO.393/JPR/2024 SHRI VIJAY SINGH VS ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28 / 10/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- ShriVijay Singh, Alwar 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -1(5), Alwar 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 3936/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "