SHRI. K. S DUSHYANTH (HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 304/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, allowed the assessee's plea for a hearing and remitted the entire issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is to decide the matter after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 11,99,000 to the assessee's income under Section 69A for cash deposits made during demonetisation, as the assessee failed to furnish the source of these deposits. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation was justified, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Smt. Jinitha Chatterjee, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Hearing: 24.05.2023Pronounced: 24.05.2023

Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] dated 28.02.203 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised grounds with regard to sustaining the addition of Rs.11,99,000 made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act.

3.

The facts of the case are that the AO made an addition u/s. 69A of Rs.11,99,000 on the reason that the assessee has deposited the said amount in cash to its bank account in Bank of Baroda during the demonetisation period and the assessee has not furnished the source of such deposits.

4.

On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) gave opportunity of hearings to the assessee as follows :-

S.No. Date of Compliance Remarks Notice sent Date 1. 14.3.2020 19.03.2020 No response from the appellant. 2. 07.01.2021 19.01.2021 No response from the appellant. 3. 25.11.2021 17.12.2021 No response from the appellant. 4. 24.08.2022 08.09.2022 No response from the appellant. 5. 09.02.2023 17.02.2023 No response from the appellant.

5.

There was no response from the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) having no option, confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.

6.

Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee pleaded an opportunity of hearing to present the assessee’s case so as to explain the source of such deposits. In the interest of justice, acceding to the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we remit the entire issue in dispute to the AO for fresh consideration and to decide the same after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 24th day of May, 2023.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →