M/S. TOPMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-11(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 738/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 2023AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not substantiated its claim before the lower authorities and had failed to provide evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in textile manufacturing and trading, had cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.95,33,213/- under Section 68 as unexplained cash deposit.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization was justified, and whether the assessee was denied natural justice by the ex parte order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah
For Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Pronounced: 21.08.2023

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has challenged the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and has also challenged the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.95,33,213/- being the cash deposit made during the demonitisation period.

(A.Y.2017-18) M/s. Topman International Ltd. vs. ACIT 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of textiles. The assessee had filed its return of income dated 13.10.2017, declaring total income at Rs.47,80,590/- under the normal provisions and Rs.49,38,649/- under MAT provisions and the assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that there was cash deposit during demonetization period and the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) determined the total income at Rs.1,43,13,802/- by making an addition of Rs.95,33,213/- u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash deposit during demonitisation period.

4.

The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the impugned addition made by the A.O. The ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 11.03.2022 upheld the addition made by the A.O.

5.

The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A).

6.

The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to represent its case before the first appellate authority and prayed that the matter shall be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for giving one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the ld. CIT(A).

7.

The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, vehemently opposed for remanding the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld.

(A.Y.2017-18) M/s. Topman International Ltd. vs. ACIT DR further contended that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee had failed to substantiate its claim before the lower authorities.

8.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the assessee has not substantiated its claim before the first appellate authority, as it has been non compliant inspite of several opportunities. The assessee has not filed any documentary evidence to show the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction in order to discharge its onus casted upon it u/s. 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition for the reason that the assessee has not furnished any evidences to support its claim. On considering the submission of the ld. AR, we deem it fit to remand this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the first appellate authority. The assessee is directed to comply with the proceeding without any further delay and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue on merits based on the submission proposed to be made by the assessee. Hence, this issue is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de nonvo adjudication.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →