HAREN PRAMODKUMAR PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-19(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2070/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 September 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without properly examining the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income based on large cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee claimed to be an accommodation entry provider. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order and properly considered the assessee's submissions. The validity of additions made by the AO based on cash deposits and the assessee's status as an entry provider.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & Ms. PADMAVATHY. S

For Appellant: Shri Haresh Soni, Ld.AR
For Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.DR
Hearing: 26.09.2023Pronounced: 27.09.2023

O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JM:

The appellant, Shri Haren Pramodkumar Parekh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

[Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi], qua the assessment year 2017-18 on the ground, inter alia that -

1.

Non-speaking order by CIT(A).

2.

Addition of Rs.2,24,12,730/-12% of total bank deposits added by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) as against 0.15% claimed by the appellant. 3. Addition of Rs.5,21,54,075/- (total cash deposited in bank account without giving effect to cash withdrawal).

2 :: 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: during the scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that there is a huge cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,01,56,500/- in the assessee’s account maintained with Central Bank of India. On failure of the assessee to file the necessary explanation rather claimed vide letter dated 16.12.2019 that he is an accommodation entry provider. The AO proceeded to hold that in such entry provider’s cases, actual profit earned by the assessee, cannot be verified and proceeded to estimate the profit @12% to the tune of Rs.2,24,12,730/-. The AO also proceeded to make addition of Rs.5,21,54,075/- on failure of the assessee to explain the cash deposits deposited by him in his bank account u/s.69A of the Act, and thereby, framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act.

3.

The assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeals.

4.

We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto.

5.

Bear perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(A) goes to prove that the same has been passed ex parte as the assessee has failed to file the submissions. However, it is further noticed that the assessee has filed submissions which have been extracted by the ld.CIT(A) in Para No.4.2 of the 3 :: impugned order. However, the same have not been examined and appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed by returning the following findings: On the basis of facts as recorded and the background of submissions made, it would be clear that appeal made against the assessment is without merit and deserves to be Dismissed.

6.

Since the ld.CIT(A) has passed impugned order without examining the submissions made by the assessee by returning cryptic findings, we have no option except to remand the case back to the ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh once for all and to stop the multiplicity of the proceedings by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 27th of September, 2023, in Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →