The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Jaipur has remanded a case of Rs 76.31 lakh tax addition, stating that the taxpayer must be provided one more chance to prove that a disputed bank account linked to his PAN did not belong to him.
A coram of Judicial Member Narinder Kumar and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta specified that the issue needed to be analysed and observed that the appellate authority must allow the taxpayer to place proper material on record before rejecting their claim.
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Appeals should have made an effort to enable the assessee-appellant to present all pertinent evidence to substantiate his assertion of having no ties to the bank account associated with The Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. This matter relates to the assessment of Buniya Amin, a resident of Kota, for the Assessment Year 2017–18.
The proceedings were reopened after the tax department obtained the information of cash deposits of Rs 32.46 lakh in a savings account maintained with The Kota Central Co-operative Bank.
Recommended: How Income Tax Software Companies Should Prepare for Bill 2025
With the progress of the reassessment, the assessing officer identified two additional bank accounts linked to Amin: one with the same cooperative bank and another with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Rs 76.31 lakh is the total cash deposited across the three accounts.
No answer was given by Amin to the notices of the tax department during the reassessment. The assessing officer considered the entire amount as unexplained income and added it to his taxable income because no explanation was on record for the cash deposits found in his bank account.
Amin, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), stated that he was an agriculturist who also ran a small kirana business. He added that, for the first time, one of the Kota Central Co-operative Bank accounts, which alone had deposits of over Rs 33 lakh, did not belong to him. He mentioned that the remaining deposits represented either redeposits of cash withdrawn earlier or income from agriculture and his small business.
Such explanations are denied by the commissioner. The appellate authority mentioned that the bank account in question had been identified via the PAN details of Amin. He provided a photocopy of a bank document that cannot be verified independently.
No identity records from the bank, no confirmation from bank officials, and no sworn statements were placed on record. The Commissioner in such cases said the refusal of ownership appeared to be “an afterthought” and kept the tax addition.
The appeal has been countered by the revenue, citing that he had stayed non-compliant throughout the assessment proceedings and had raised the refusal merely at the appellate phase. While recognising Amin’s failure to participate earlier and his inability to release the burden before the Commissioner, the tribunal held that the nature of the issue explained another opportunity.
Read Also: Jaipur ITAT Upholds Deletion of ₹2.16 Crore Citing Audited Books and TDS Mismatch with Form 26AS
The tribunal said that, “Having regard to the seriousness of the issue involved, we deem it a fit case to afford another opportunity to the appellant.” Therefore, it set aside the appellate order and directed a fresh decision after granting him a further hearing.
| Applicant Name | Buniya Amin vs. ITO |
| GSTIN of the applicant | ITA No. 1324/JPR/2025 |
| Assessee by | Shri Kushal Soni |
| Revenue by | Mrs. Anita Rinesh |
| Jaipur ITAT | Read Order |
