Manoj Kumar Maurya Vs ITO (ITAT Varanasi )
SEO Title: ITAT Remands Cash Deposit Addition After Revised SFT Corrects ₹1.04 Crore Data
Summary: The appeal concerned an addition of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and taxed under section 115BBE for AY 2019-20. The Assessing Officer had received information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- in one or more Bank of Baroda accounts during the relevant financial year, while no return had initially been filed. The assessment was reopened under section 147. The assessee subsequently filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 2,52,219/-, but did not respond to notices under section 142(1) or the subsequent show-cause notice. The AO therefore treated the entire reported cash deposit as unexplained money under section 69A and brought it to tax under section 115BBE of the Act.
Before the CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee submitted that agriculture was his principal source of income and that his income was not chargeable to tax. He stated that he had sold agricultural land during AY 2019-20 for household requirements and disputed the reported cash deposits. He also stated that he was unfamiliar with the income-tax portal and email handling and was unaware of the notices and assessment order. A bank statement was furnished, along with the contention that the assessee had no connection with the information on the basis of which section 148 proceedings had been initiated and that his PAN had inadvertently been reported by the bank. The CIT(A) issued further hearing notices, but the assessee did not comply and the addition was upheld.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the total transactions in his Bank of Baroda account amounted only to Rs. 22,91,191.50, which represented proceeds credited against sale of agricultural land. He maintained that he had only one bank account and that there were no other cash deposits during the relevant period. He also stated that a reply had subsequently been submitted to the AO on 08.05.2024 after service of the demand notice, raising the issue of incorrect information uploaded by the SFT filer. The assessee relied upon a revised SFT statement and Form 26AS showing the cash-deposit figure as Rs. 0.00 and contended that the reassessment itself was based on incorrect information.
The Revenue opposed the relief, pointing out the assessee’s non-compliance before the AO and CIT(A). It submitted that the AO had no reason to presume that the SFT information was erroneous unless the assessee had raised the issue during assessment proceedings. It also contended that even the credit of Rs. 22,91,191/- required examination to determine its tax implications. Since the sale deed and revised Form 26AS were additional evidence, the Revenue requested that the matter be restored to the AO rather than having the Tribunal appreciate that evidence for the first time.
The Tribunal found that the case had been reopened because of information uploaded by the SFT filer, which could not be verified during assessment because of the assessee’s non-compliance. It further noted that the SFT filer had subsequently rectified the statement and that the revised position was reflected in the new Form 26AS furnished before the Tribunal. The assessee had also produced a sale deed from which he claimed that the credit in his bank account arose.
The Tribunal observed that neither the sale of land nor the bank-account credits appeared to have been within the AO’s knowledge and that the assessment had been made without obtaining a copy of the bank account, relying instead upon the SFT information alone. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO so that the newly furnished material could be examined and a fresh order passed in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not finally delete the addition of Rs. 1,04,50,000/-; instead, the issue was restored to the AO for examination of the revised SFT, Form 26AS, sale deed and relevant bank-account material and for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) / NFAC dated 23.05.2025, wherein the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), for the AY 2019-20 dated 15.02.2024. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of (A) NFAC was not justified to confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer deposit cash in the bank account Rs 10450000.00. Except Rs 2291192.00 no any other cash in the bank has duly been deposited in the bank account by the appellant. And after verification in the 26AS the type of cash deposited in the bank in not reflecting under the SFT004.
2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of (A) NFAC was not justified to confirmed the addition Rs 10450000.00. Though in the Bank account with Bank of Baroda has duly been deposited Rs 2291192.00 against the sale of agricultural land.
3. Because the Ld. Commissioner of (A) NFAC was not justified to confirmed the addition without given any proper opportunity being heard to the appellant and has confirmed the said addition. Though in the statement of Facts has submitted during the file of appeal the facts has duly been mentioned in the Grounds of appeals and statement of facts.
4. Because the appellant craves for a right to raise any additional ground during the course of hearing of the case.
5. Because the order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer is erroneous, bad in law and on facts and is liable to be deleted.”
2. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee had made cash deposits in one or more account in the Bank of Baroda amounting to Rs. 1,04,50,000/- during the Financial Year (FY) relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, but had not filed his return of income for the said AY. Accordingly, he reopened the case of the assessee under section 147, after taking the necessary approval. The AO records that he issued various notices to the assessee. The assessee responded to the notices under section 148 and filed an ITR declaring a total income of Rs. 2,52,219/-.Thereafter notices under section 142(1) were issued asking the assessee to explain the sources of funds for the cash deposited by him in the bank account. The assessee did not submit any response to either the notice under section 142(1) or subsequent show-cause notice. Therefore, the AO concluded that he had no explanation to offer in this regard and he added back a sum of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE of the Act.
3. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the learned CIT(A) a submission was made in the form of statement of facts. It was submitted that the main source of the assessee’s income was agriculture. Since the total income of the assessee was not chargeable to tax, the assessee had not filed his ITR under section 139 for the AY 2019-20. However upon receiving a notice, he had filed the return. It was submitted that during the AY 2019-20, the assessee had sold similar land for his household requirements. It was submitted that in the first place the assessee had not deposited the amount stated to have been deposited in his bank account. Furthermore, since he was not familiar with the income tax portal or the handling of email account, therefore he was not even aware of the said notices and the assessment order issued by the Department on 15.02.2024. It was submitted that no notice had been physically served upon to him. He attached a copy of his bank statement and submitted that he had no connection with the information on the basis of which the notice under section 148 had been issued. He submitted that the AO had made such a huge addition only because the assessee’s PAN had inadvertently being reported on by the said Bank. The learned CIT(A) considered the said submission. He issued further notices for hearing but the assessee did not comply with the same, therefore after considering the materials on record, the learned CIT(A) held that there was no basis to interfere with the order of the AO and he accordingly upheld the addition.
4. The assessee aggrieved with the dismissal of his appeal and has accordingly come before us. Shri O.P. Shukla, Advocate (AR) submitted that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- because the total transactions that had been made in that account only amounted to Rs. 22,91,191.50, which has been duly credited to the account against the sale of agricultural land. The assessee only had one bank account, which was maintained at Bank of Baroda, Ramkatora Branch, Varanasi and there was no other cash deposited during the period for which notice was issued. During the AY in question, the assessee had sold a piece of land and all the proceeds had been received in the abovementioned bank account and nothing has been received in cash. It was submitted that a reply had been submitted before the learned AO on 08.05.2024, after the service of demand notice, where these facts had been pointed out and the assessee had expressed his concern against the uploading of wrong information by the SFT Filer. The learned AR pointed out that since the notice under section 148 was itself based upon wrong information, the satisfaction of escapement of income was bad in law. The learned AR further pointed out that later on the said SFT had been revised by the SFT filer and a copy of the revised SFT was placed at pages nos. 42 to 43 of his Paper Book, wherein the Form No. 26AS did not reveal any amount of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- and the figure against the cash deposit had been reflected as Rs. 0.00 and in the circumstances, it was prayed that the assessment order being bad in law and based upon wrong facts, may be quashed and the assessee may be granted relief.
5. On the other hand, Shri Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR pointed out that the assessee had been non-compliant before the AO and also before the learned CIT(A). It was for this reason that they had considered the cash deposit in the said bank account with Bank of Baroda, Ramkatora Branch, to be unexplained. The AO had no reason to assume that there were mistakes in SFT filed by filer unless the assessee was to point this out in the assessment proceedings. Furthermore the learned Sr. DR submitted that even the credit of Rs. 22,91,191/- was required to be examined, to determine whether it gave rise to any tax liability or not. He, therefore, prayed that since the sale-deed and revised 26AS were in the nature of additional evidence, they should be restored back to the file of the AO for considering rather than result in the Tribunal appreciating the evidence for the first time.
6. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the parties. It appears that the case of the assessee was reopened due to certain information having been uploaded by the SFT filer, which could not be verified during the course of assessment because of non-compliance by the assessee. It also appears that subsequently, the SFT filer has rectified the said statement and this is reflected in the new Form 26AS that has been furnished by the assessee before us. The assessee has also furnished a sale-deed from which he claims that the credit in his bank account arises. It appears that neither the fact of sale of land nor the credits in the bank account were in the knowledge of the AO and the AO has made the assessment without obtaining a copy of the said bank account and by relying upon the SFT information alone. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of the AO so that the AO may consider this material and thereafter pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31.08.2026 in the open Court.
