AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 05.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2012- 13.
Shri Amit Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee in appeal has assailed the addition of Rs.13,50,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained money. The AO re-opened the assessment based on information available with the department that the assessee has received interest payment of Rs.17,78,541/- during F.Y. 2011-12. The assessee furnished Bank statement during assessment proceedings. The AO on examination of same questioned source of cash deposits in bank account. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee explained that cash deposits in the bank account were from earlier withdrawals. The details were furnished before the AO and the CIT(A) but the said submissions of the assessee were rejected. The ld. Counsel for the assessee to supplement his oral submission has also filed written submission.
Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department reiterated findings given by the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.13,50,000/-. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the impugned assessment order and dismissing appeal of the assessee.
Both sides heard. Orders of the lower authorities examined. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information available with the department that the assessee has received interest payment of Rs.17,78,541/-during F.Y. 2011-12 i.e. relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 under appeal. During the course of assessment proceedings, it transpires that the assessee had deposited cash including other credits of Rs.23,50,000/- during F.Y. 2011-12, whereas, the gross turnover declared by the assessee for F.Y. 2011-12 was Rs.10,00,000/- only. The assessee explained that the cash deposits are from earlier withdrawals. To substantiate his contention, bank statement was furnished before the AO. The AO after examining the bank statements observed that no substantial cash withdrawals are seen from the bank account. Therefore, the assessee’s contention that cash deposits of Rs.23,50,000/- are from earlier withdrawals cannot be accepted. Thus, the AO made addition of the difference between the total credits in the bank account i.e. Rs.23,50,000/-and the total turnover declared i.e. Rs.10,00,000/-, as undisclosed income.
At the outset, from bare perusal of the assessment order, it emanates that case of the assessee has reopened for the reason that the assessee was received interest of Rs.17,78,541/- during the F.Y. 2011-12. However, no addition has been made by the AO on the reason recorded for reopening. The addition of Rs.13,00,000/- has been made in respect of alleged unexplained cash credits in the bank account of the assessee. It is no more res integra that where the addition has been made on an issue other than for which the assessment was reopened, the assessment is unsustainable. [Re. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.)]
In light of above findings, the impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.