ITAT Jaipur, December 24, 2025 : The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has remanded a reassessment dispute involving an addition of ₹76.31 lakh towards unexplained cash deposits, holding that the assessee must be given one more effective opportunity to establish that a disputed bank account linked to his PAN did not belong to him.
The appeal was decided by a Bench comprising Judicial Member Narinder Kumar and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta. The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority should have enabled the taxpayer to place complete and verifiable material on record before rejecting his denial of ownership. Given the seriousness of the issue and the quantum of addition, the matter required closer scrutiny and could not be concluded without affording a fair opportunity.
The case relates to the assessment of Buniya Amin, a resident of Kota, for Assessment Year 2017–18. The proceedings were reopened after the Income Tax Department received information about cash deposits of ₹32.46 lakh in a savings account maintained with The Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. During reassessment, the Assessing Officer identified 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 cumulative 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, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount as unexplained money under Section 69A and added it to the assessee’s income by order dated 4 May 2023.
On appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee claimed that he was an agriculturist and also ran a small kirana business. He asserted that the cash deposits represented redeposits of earlier withdrawals or income from agriculture and business. Importantly, for the first time at the appellate stage, he denied ownership of one of the Kota Central Co-operative Bank accounts which reflected cash deposits of ₹33.01 lakh.
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, noting that the disputed account had been traced on the basis of PAN linkage. The appellate authority recorded that the assessee had produced only an unverifiable photocopy of a bank document, without furnishing KYC records, customer master data, bank confirmations, or sworn statements from bank officials. In the absence of credible evidence, the denial of ownership was treated as an afterthought and the entire addition of ₹76.31 lakh was upheld.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee confined his request to seeking one more opportunity to establish that the disputed co-operative bank account did not belong to him and that the deposits of ₹33.01 lakh should therefore be excluded from his taxable income. The Revenue opposed the plea, pointing out the assessee’s continued non-compliance during assessment and the belated nature of the denial.
While acknowledging the assessee’s failure to participate in the assessment proceedings and his inability to discharge the burden before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal held that the appellate authority should nonetheless have taken steps to allow the assessee to place all relevant material on record. The Bench observed that, having regard to the seriousness of the issue, another opportunity was warranted.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication. The appellate authority has been directed to re-decide the matter after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and allowing him to produce evidence to establish whether the disputed bank account had any connection with him. The appeal was disposed of for statistical purposes.
Case Reference : Appearance: For the Assessee, Shri Kushal Soni, C.A.; for the Revenue, Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT | Cause Title: Buniya Amin vs. The ITO | Case Number: ITA No. 1324/JPR/2025 (A.Y. 2017–18) | Coram: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, and Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member.
