TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is rejected. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on careful perusal of the documents on record. 3. That as per the assessment order, the A.O accepted the cash deposits of Rs. 1,29,500/- which pertains to the period before demonetization. Therefore, he restricted the addition from total deposits of Rs. 3,60,000/- deducting the said amount of Rs. 1,29,500/- which pertains to prior to the demonetization period and thereafter, remaining amount of Rs. 2,30,500/- was brought to tax as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and added to the hands of the assessee. 4. Adjudicating on the said issue at Para.6.4, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC referred to the written submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind since he has referred to the submissions of the assessee which reveals SBN amounting to Rs. 3,60,000/- which was never the subject matter of dispute as per the assessment order. This is a classic example of non-application of mind by the quasi-judicial authority. The quasi-judicial authority are authorized to dispense justice both substantive and equitable. Substantive justice refers to the person on whom tax liability are to be imposed, whereas, equitable justice refers to the proper application of mind considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, I refer to the following judicial pronouncements where for non-application of mind, the addition have been deleted from the hands of the assessee. 6. The Co-ordinat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... part of addition but there is no logic of this segregation. From the relevant operative part of first appellate order, I also note that the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following the proposition rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sarika Jain (supra). I have no hesitation to hold that the addition made by the AO by mentioning incorrect and irrelevant charging section is not sustainable and valid being bad in law. Accordingly, grounds of assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompetent to make the said addition under Section 69-A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law Accordingly, we answer the question of law, as framed above, in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue and hold that the Tribunal was not competent to make any addition under Section 69-A of the Act and as the same was subject matter of the appeal before it." 8. Further, ITAT, "SMC" Raipur Bench in the case of Raghvendra Singh Thakur Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur ITA No.242/RPR/2025, dated 14.07.2025 on the similar facts and circumstances has held and observed as follows: "5. At the outset, on this issue, it is noted that the AO had made addition u/s. 69 of the Act wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ahr, reported in 2023(10) TMI 1027-ITAT Delhi on the same issue of applying wrong provision of the Act, it was observed and held as follows: "14. In view of foregoing discussion, I reach to a logical conclusion that the complete cash book statement clearly explains the source of cash deposit to the bank account of assessee, wherein the assessee has not only included cash receipts as salary and capital withdrawal from two partnership firms M/s Umang Beverages and M/s Mohan Oil & Cattle Feed and a cash salary from Bihar Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. and has also reduced the amount of drawings for household expenses. The copy of return of income of wife of assessee Smt. Shalini and father of assessee Shri Kalu Mal co-jointly established that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: "In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of the gift received by the appellant-assessee as his personal income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view of the above, it can safely be said that the Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of....