Pranav B Prem

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has remanded a case involving an addition of ₹76.31 lakh towards unexplained cash deposits, holding that the assessee must be given one more opportunity to establish that a disputed bank account linked to his PAN did not belong to him. The Tribunal observed that the appellate authority ought to have enabled the taxpayer to place proper and complete material on record before rejecting his plea.

Also Read: ITAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹2.28-Crore Capital Gains Tax On Housing Society For Developer Payments To Members

The appeal was decided by a Bench comprising Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, and Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member. The Tribunal held that, considering the seriousness of the issue and the magnitude of the tax addition, the matter required closer examination and could not be concluded without affording the assessee a fair opportunity to substantiate his claim.

The case pertains to the assessment of Buniya Amin, a resident of Kota, for the assessment year 2017–18. The assessment proceedings were reopened after the Income Tax Department received information regarding cash deposits amounting to ₹32.46 lakh in a savings bank account maintained with The Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. During the course of reassessment, the Assessing Officer discovered two additional bank accounts allegedly linked to the assessee—another account with the same co-operative bank and one with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The total cash deposits across these three accounts were computed at ₹76.31 lakh.

Despite issuance of notices under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee did not respond or participate in the reassessment proceedings. In the absence of any explanation for the cash deposits, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of ₹76.31 lakh as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and added it to the assessee’s taxable income by order dated 4 May 2023.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the appellate authority, the assessee claimed that he was an agriculturist and also ran a small kirana business. He contended that the cash deposits represented either redeposits of amounts withdrawn earlier or income from agriculture and business. For the first time at the appellate stage, he also claimed that one of the Kota Central Co-operative Bank accounts—bearing cash deposits of ₹33.01 lakh—did not belong to him.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected these submissions. It was observed that the disputed bank account had been identified on the basis of PAN linkage. The appellate authority noted that the assessee had produced only a photocopy of a bank document, which could not be independently verified. No KYC records, bank confirmations, customer master data, or sworn statements from bank officials were furnished. In these circumstances, the denial of ownership was treated as an “afterthought,” and the entire addition of ₹76.31 lakh was upheld.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee limited his plea to seeking one more opportunity to establish that the disputed Kota Central Co-operative Bank account did not belong to him and that the corresponding deposits of ₹33.01 lakh ought to be excluded from his taxable income. The Revenue opposed the request, pointing out that the assessee had remained non-compliant throughout the assessment proceedings and had raised the denial of ownership only at the appellate stage.

While acknowledging that the assessee had failed to participate in the assessment proceedings and had not effectively discharged the burden before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal held that the appellate authority should nevertheless have taken steps to enable the assessee to bring all relevant material on record in support of his claim. The Tribunal observed that, “having regard to the seriousness of the issue involved,” the matter warranted another opportunity.

Also Read: Court-Approved Amalgamation And Consistent Expense Allocation Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Section 80-IC Deduction: ITAT Delhi

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the appeal for a fresh decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to re-adjudicate the matter after granting the assessee another opportunity of being heard and to allow him to place proper evidence on record to establish whether the disputed bank account had any connection with him. The appeal was thus disposed of for statistical purposes.

Appearance

For Assessee: Shri Kushal Soni, C.A.

For Revenue: Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Cause Title: Buniya Amin vs. The ITO

Case Number: ITA No. 1324/JPR/2025 A.Y. 2017-2018

Coram: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, and Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member