Cash deposit of Rs. 250000 cr (credit) misread as crores by AO – Plea declined

High Court declines plea of assessee that Income Tax Department wrongly read amount of cash deposit of Rs. 250000 Cr (credit) as Rs. 2.50 crores.

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court declined to entertain plea of the assessee that Income Tax Department wrongly read amount of cash deposit of Rs. 250000 Cr (credit) as Rs. 2.50 crores.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4965 (2025) (12) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the assessee/Petitioner had prayed for quashing of the assessment order and penalty under Sections 144, 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) based on the erroneous reporting of cash deposit.

It was submitted that the actual cash deposit in the bank was of Rs. 2,50,000/- only which had been wrongly reported by the Bank on the Income Tax Portal as Rs. 2.5 crores.

The Bank supported the contention made by counsel for the petitioner. It had been submitted that Rs. 2,50,000/- Cr. (short form for credit) had been uploaded by the Bank on portal, which had been wrongly read by the Assessing Officer (AO) as Rs. 2.5 crores. It was submitted that the word credit in short had been written as Cr., which had been wrongly read by the assessing officer as crores.

On the other hand, the Income Tax Department produced a copy of confidential information downloaded by the Assessing Officer, wherein there was a specific amount shown as 25,000,000, i.e., six zeros after the figure of 25, which clearly made out the amount to be Rs. 2.5 crores.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that there was no mention of the text Cr. therein in such information that was downloaded by the assessing officer from the common information portal maintained in this regard, where the Bank uploads the information, which is known as the (Revenue/Risk/Records Management System Portal (RMS Portal).

Further the Hon’ble High Court noted that the petitioner had been given repeated notices before the assessment was done, and thereafter, penalty was also imposed upon the petitioner. It is after penalty was imposed that the petitioner sent an email to the department.

The Hon’ble High Court disposed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, along with an application for interim relief.

The Hon’ble High Court directed that application of the applicant shall be considered on its merits and shall not be rejected on the ground of delay alone by the appellate authority.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT
• Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT
• Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT
• Cost Inflation Index for FY/Tax Year 2026-27 notified by CBDT. See Up-to-date Table of CII
• Power of CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a) to remand case can be exercised only in best judgment assessment