Vivek Logani Vs Circle 61(1) (ITAT Delhi)
Summary: The Delhi ITAT considered an appeal for AY 2012-13 concerning an addition of ₹37,79,000 on account of cash deposits in a joint bank account. The assessee, an orthopaedic surgeon, had filed his return on 27-09-2012 declaring total income of ₹13,59,485, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reassessment was framed under Section 147 read with Section 144, with the addition stated to relate to cash deposits in Nainital Bank Ltd., although the assessee did not maintain such an account. The Tribunal noted that the relevant joint account was maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce by the assessee and his father, Shri Vijay Kumar Logani, and that cash deposits of ₹37,79,000 had been made therein during the relevant assessment year. Significantly, the same cash deposits had already been added to the total income of the assessee’s father under Section 69A as unexplained money in reassessment proceedings under Section 144 read with Section 147, and the father had accepted that order without filing an appeal. The Tribunal therefore held that making the addition again in the assessee’s hands in respect of the very same cash deposits would amount to double addition and directed deletion of the addition. Since relief was granted on merits, the other factual and legal grounds, including the challenge to assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, were left open as academic. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed.
Delhi ITAT Deletes ₹37.79-Lakh Cash-Deposit Addition: Same Amount Cannot Be Taxed Again in Joint Holder’s Hands
The Delhi ITAT deleted the addition relating to cash deposits of ₹37.79 lakh in a joint bank account maintained by the assessee, an orthopaedic surgeon, with his father. The reassessment had been initiated on factually incorrect premises, including that the assessee had not filed his original return and that the deposits were made in a Nainital Bank account, although the relevant account was actually maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce.
Significantly, the same cash deposits had already been assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A in the hands of the assessee’s father, who accepted the assessment without filing an appeal. The Tribunal held that taxing the identical deposits once again in the assessee’s hands would result in an impermissible double addition. It therefore directed complete deletion of the addition. Since relief was granted on merits, the assessee’s other factual and legal grounds, including the validity of reopening under Section 147, were left open.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. The appeal in ITA No.6070/Del/2026 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 11.02.2026 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 14.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-22(5), Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal before this tribunal by 28 days by the assessee. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication.
3. The Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and consequential framing of reassessment thereon. Apart from this, the only issue to be decided on merits is as to whether the learned NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made on account of cash deposits made in the joint bank account in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 27-09-2012 declaring total income of Rs 13,59,485 as income from medical profession. This return was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the Learned CPC on 9-12 -2012. The assessee is an orthopedic surgeon and the case of the assessee was sought to be reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 31-03- 2019, which according to assessee was never served on assessee either through email or by post. The said notice is also not available in the ITBA portal, which proves that the notice under section 148 of the Act was not uploaded in the ITBA portal by the department. The reassessment order stood passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 14-12- 2019 making additions of Rs 34,79,000 to the income of the assessee on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in Nainital Bank Ltd, which the assessee does not maintain at all. It was submitted that the focal point of best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act is, cash deposit made in the bank account of assessee which the assessee is not even the first account holder, on the incorrect premise that the assessee had not filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration. Factually there is a joint bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce by the assessee along with his father Shri Vijay Kumar Logani. In that Oriental Bank of Commerce bank account, cash of Rs 37,79,000 was deposited during the assessment year 2012-13. In the hands of assessee’s father Shri Vijay Kumar Logani, reassessment was framed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 30-11-2019 wherein the cash deposit of Rs 37,79,000 was added to the total income of the father of assessee treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The said reassessment order is enclosed in Page 89 of the Paper Book. It was submitted that the assessee’s father had accepted the said assessment order and had not preferred any appeal against the same. Since the cash deposit made in the Oriental Bank of Commerce has already been added in the hands of the assessee’s father, the addition made in the hands of the assessee herein does not survive as it would have no legs to stand and it would amount only to double addition. As stated earlier, there was no Nainital Bank account maintained by the assessee at all. This goes to prove that the reopening has been made based on incorrect assumption of fact in the hands of the assessee. Be that as it may, on merits, since the addition on account of cash deposits has already been made in the hands of the assessee’s father Shri Vijay Kumar Logani and which has been accepted by assessee’s father by not filing any further appeal, I hold that the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of very same cash deposits would only amount to double addition and is hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on merits of the addition are hereby allowed.
5. Since the relief is granted to the assessee on merits, the adjudication of other factual and legal grounds become academic in nature and they are left open.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th -August, 2026.
