Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Per Amarjit Singh (AM):
The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 27.10.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us:
“1. Sir, the assessment order passed by the assessing authority has been upheld by the commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (National Faceless Appeal Centre) with regards to the additions made of Rs.4,06,500/(Four Lac Six Thousand Five Hundred only) made in law needs to be set aside
The additions upheld by the CIT Appeal) (NFAC), the appellate authority has not given any opportunity for hearing the said appeal, so putting forward our view or presentations, was denied The said allege additions made by the assessing authority were accepted and no hearing was given for any arguments, presentation Simply the order was passed and the appeal was dismissed.
P a g e | 2 and 22 September, 2021 asking for grounds of appeal as Hon’ble Commissioner (Appeal) cannot locate the said Grounds of Appeal appended and submitted otherwise the appeal will be rejected and never said or communicated about the hearing of appeal. the notice clearly state to submit grounds of appeal. After submission was made, the order was passed and the appeal was rejected, no opportunity was provided for hearing, which is bad in law. The Appellate Authority should have provided me with hearing opportunity to virtually present my case, such case cannot be finalized in this fashion. Sir, I have been unnecessary penalized by not giving me proper Opportunity and have been deprived of natural Justice
Sir, such sensitive case of demonetization requires the appellate authority to give patient video call hearing opportunity to me & my representative assesse, to present the case before him, however the same was denied which is bad in law and the same is against the law of natural justice. Sir, no Appeal proceeding were conducted and simple rejection order was passed.
Your Appellant craves leaves to add, amend, alter or / and delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal.”
The fact in brief is that assesse’s name appeared in the ITBA for issuing of notice u/s 142(1) for assessment year 2017-18 as it had deposited cash of Rs.71,06,220/- during the period of Demonetization. The assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 04.12.2017 and 10.03.2018. However, the assesse has not filed any return of income in response to the notice issued by the assessing officer. Therefore, case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 18.07.2018. During the course of reassessment the A.O has gathered information from Kotak Mahindra Bank and Sindhudurg Sahakari Bank by issuing of notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, assessee has filed its return on 28.11.2018 declaring total
P a g e | 3 Mahavir Sampatraj Jain Vs. ITO, Ward 20(2)(2) income of Rs.3,10,650/-. With regard to the cash deposit of Rs.71,06,220/- the assessee has submitted as under: “9.1 With regard to cash deposited of Rs.71,06,220/- during the period of demonetization, the assessee vide letter dated 6 12.2019 has submitted that:- (a) Cash deposited during demonetization period of Rs. 13,21,200/- with account maintained with Sindhudurga Sahakari Bank Ltd. Out of said deposits, Rs.8,37,200/- are other notes and balance cash deposited of Rs.4,84,000/- are the cash received from the debtors. (b) Cash deposited during demonetization period of Rs.7,84,760/- with account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank: Out of said deposits, Rs.3,17,000/- are other notes and balance cash deposited of Rs.4,67,760/- are the cash received from the debtors. (c) The assessee submitted a letter dated 2.12.2019 received from Sindhudurga Sahakari Bank Ltd, wherein its stated that the account no. mentioned in the statement 1400 is a computer code for overdraft accounts and PAN No. AAAA5479E belongs to the bank. Thus the amount of Rs. 23,67,285/- shown in the respective column was not deposited by M/s. Sonu Marketing (Prop. Mahavir Jain) PAN No. AADPJ0382R. (d) The assessee submitted a letter dated 3.12.2019 received from Sindhudurga Sahakari Bank Ltd, wherein the said bank has confirmed that M/s Madhu Enterprises maintaining overdraft A/c No. 118 and Mahavir Sampatraj Jain HUF Karta is operating this account. The PAN of HUF is AAFHM3277G. In view of this facts, the assessee has submitted the cash deposits during the demonetization period of Rs.26,32,975/- is not pertaining to him.
2 Further, assessee vide letter dated 10.12.2019 has submitted that cash deposited during demonetization period has been fully accounted and has been deposited from our cash sales as well as cash balance lying in our books of accounts. The assessee vide letter dated 20.12 2019 has submitted copy of agreement with Britania Industries with his proprietary business M/s. Sonu Marketing.”
However, A.O has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and treated the amount of Rs.4,06,000/- being the cash amount deposited after the date of demonetization in the aforesaid two bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.
P a g e | 4 P a g e | 5 Place: Mumbai Date 17.03.2023 Rohit: PS
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.