Hanaman Singh Son Of Shri Bhura Ram, Having His Address Atdhani Buriyo Ki, Ward v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15907/2022 Hanaman Singh Son Of Shri Bhura Ram, Having His Address AtDhani Buriyo Ki, Ward No. 10, Reengus, Sikar 332001 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana Having Its Address AtNear Santoshi Mata Mandir, Chhawani Road, Khetri Mode,Godawas Road, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar 332713 ----Respondent HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 08/09/2025 Order 1.In the notice dated 14[th] March 2022 for Assessment Year2015-16, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’), it is alleged in the information annexedthereto that petitioner has deposited cash of Rs.50,40,000/- inBaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank in two tranches ofRs.22,65,000/- and Rs.27,75,000/-, respectively. It is alleged inthe notice that source of cash deposit in bank account remainsunexplained and must be brought to tax. In the reply to thenotice, the assessee has taken a stand that he has only one bankaccount in Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and hisincome is from agricultural produce and that he has not depositedcash in excess of Rs.50 lacs in the bank account. He has alsomade available to the department a bank statement dated 21[st]March 2022, which indicates four cash installations on 10[th] July 2014, 16[th] July 2014, 21[st] August 2014 and 23[rd] August 2014totaling to Rs.27,75,000/-. 2.The Revenue instead of providing any other evidence toshow that statement relied upon by petitioner is incorrect, hasproceeded to pass impugned order dated 26[th] March 2022 underSection 148A(d) of the Act, followed by a notice dated 29[th] March2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 3.Petitioner has also placed on record a certificate from BarodaRajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank issued on 21[st] September 2022certifying that petitioner had only one savings bank accountduring Financial Year 2014-15 pertaining to Assessment Year2015-16. The certificate is being introduced by way of misc.application (No.1/2022) to which there is no reply though copyhas been served on Revenue. Therefore, considering the fact thatthere is only one bank account which indicates deposit of onlyRs.27,75,000/-, we can safely conclude that the informationavailable on ITD system that petitioner deposited Rs.50,40,000/-,is erroneous. 4.Petition, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a),which reads as under: “Quash and set-aside the impugned illegal order dated26.03.2022 passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act & theimpugned notice dated 29.03.2022 issued u/s. 148 ofthe Act for the assessment year 2015-16 and allconsequential notices/orders passed in pursuancethereto;” 5.Consequently, misc. application also stands disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/10