Malkhan Singh vs AO ITO

PER MANISH AGARWAL, A.M.:

The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Karnal/11179/2019-20 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee on the basis of the information that cash of INR 57.00 Lakhs was deposited by the assessee in the Saving Bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce (“OBC”), Prem Nagar, Karnal. In response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, return of income was filed, declaring total income of INR 88,020/- as pension income. The assessee submits that he is a retired Army Personnel and having pension and agricultural income and no other source of income. Regarding the source of cash so deposited in the bank account, it was submitted that the same was deposited by his brother, Shri Alah Singh and inadvertently the account number and Name of the assessee was mentioned in the Pay in slip. In support of the claim, assessee placed before us the copy of the bank statements of his account and of his brother’s account wherein the transfer entry of the said cash was made by the bank on the next day are appearing. Assessee further filed a certificate issued by the bank reaffirming these facts which all are placed at pages 44 to 46 of Paper Book. However, both the lower authorities have not accepted the claim of the assessee solely for the reason that in the Pay in slip, name and account no. of the assessee was filled in. Thus, the present appeal is filed against the order of ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 17.09.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Before us, ld.AR for the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were made before the lower authorities that the bank has already issued the certificate dated 16.01.2021 wherein it is stated that cash of INR 57.00 lakhs deposited on 02.12.2011 was wrongly credited in the bank account of the assessee and the said cash actually belonged to Shri Alah Singh, son of Shri Gulab Singh having PAN No.BNRPS7652D for which necessary correction entries were already passed in the bank accounts on next day itself. However, without making any verification of the facts stated by the assessee, addition was made / confirmed. He prayed accordingly.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that as per Pay in slip, reproduced at page 6 of the appellate order, it could be seen that name and account no. of the assessee are filled in thus, it cannot be said that this amount of 57.00 lacs belonged to the brother of assessee. He thus, requested for the confirmation of the additions made.

Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. It is true that in Pay in slip, name and account no. of the assessee are appearing however, from the perusal of the bank statements of the assessee, placed in the Paper Book at page 45, it is observed that a credit entry (deposit) of INR 57.00 Lakhs of cash deposits was made on 02.12.2011 which was debited on 03.12.2011 with the narration “TO ENT DT 02.12.11 WRONG CREDIT INSTEAD OF 15902196”. Further, at page 46 of Paper Book, the bank statement of Shri Alah Singh, son of Shri Gulab Singh (brother of assessee) with OBC is placed wherein on 03.12.2011, with the same narration, a sum of INR 57.00 Lakhs is credited. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate these facts coupled which is further certified by the bank by way of certificate issued by the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank (since OBC is merged with PNB), Prem Nagar, Karnal. It is further observed that these details were submitted by the assessee as additional evidences before ld. CIT(A) and Remand Report was called from AO however, these facts have not been properly appreciated. Under these circumstances and in larger interest of justice, we set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and sent the matter back to the file of AO for examination of the documents filed by the assessee to prove that the cash was belonged to his brother and if the claim of assessee is found correct, no addition be made in the hands of the assessee. Needless to say that a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee. With these directions, all the Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.