Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SONJOY SARMA
order
: May 23rd, 2023 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in I.T.A. No.: 271/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prantosh Das. short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 10.01.2023 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 03.12.2019.
Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 17 days. Condonation application has been filed by the assessee stating as follows: “1. The order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 10.01.2023 for A.Y 2017- 18against the assessment order passed u/s 144 dated 03.12.2019. 2. That Sri Sushanta Debnath, who is a tax consultant, was looking after the said appeal matter of your assessee. 3. That your assessee was under the bonafide belief that proper compliances have been made by him on the dates fixed for hearing, but unfortunately no compliances have been done. 4. That your assessee was completely unaware of the above fact since he stayed mostly out of station for a longer period for his business purpose and being a hawker, he is not well-versed with technology. Hence, if any notices issued by the department, your assessee is unaware of that also. 5. That when your assessee returned to hometown in the month of March, 2023, he enquired the status of the appeal and came to know about the said appeal was dismissed vide an ex-parte order due to non-compliances. 6. That then or around 20.3.2023 the representative of the assessee approached Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate to take necessary steps in the matter and handed over all the relevant papers to him. 7. The appeal was then prepared by him by 27.03.2023and the same was filed in the office of ITAT on 28.03.2023 after a delay of 19 days. 8. That in view of the factors mentioned above, your petitioner most humbly submits that there is a reasonable cause for 19days’ delay in filing the appeal which may please be condoned and the case of your petitioner be heard on merit. In the circumstances, your petitioner prays that the delay in filing appeal before this Ld. Tribunal may kindly be condoned and the case be heard on merits or such order/orders be passed as this Ld. Tribunal deems fit and proper.” Page 2 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 271/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prantosh Das. 2.1. Considering the condonation application and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay of 17 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex-parte order.
2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,500/- made by the A.O. on account of cash deposits into the bank account by invoking the provisions of sec. 69A of the Act.
3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.”
4. The grievance of the assessee is two-fold; firstly, that ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving any opportunity to the assessee and secondly, ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,500/- made by ld. AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account.
5. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged cash deposit was made out of the funds withdrawn on the very same date from another bank account held by the assessee and further, stated that the addition has been made on account of cash deposit during the demonetization period, however, the alleged cash deposit is during the bank working hours on 08.11.2016 and the demonetization scheme was announced in the evening and therefore, no addition is called for. Page 3 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 271/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prantosh Das.
On the other hand, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. So far as the first grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal by passing an ex-parte order, we notice that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity of being heard by ld. CIT(A) but the assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing. Since sufficient opportunity has been granted by ld. CIT(A), ground no. 1 raised by the assessee do not have any merit and the same is dismissed.
Ground no. 2 is regarding the merits of the case regarding addition of Rs. 10,00,500/- made by ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposit. We notice that the assessee is a hawker and holds two bank accounts, one with State Bank of India and another with Bank of India. Before us, the issue is regarding the cash deposit made with Bank of India on 08.11.2016 at Rs. 10,00,500/-. We notice that on 08.11.2016 the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 1 lakh each on 10 occasions and the details are available on page 24 of the paperbook. Further, we notice that the assessee also holds account with State Bank of India and the bank balance as on 06.11.2016 stood at Rs. 11,52,480.99 (paperbook page 12). On 08.11.2016 the assessee withdrew Rs. 10 lakh from the bank account held with State Bank of India vide cheque no. 000044405. Under these facts, there remains no doubt to the fact that the source of the alleged cash deposit in the Bank of India bank account was the cash withdrawal from State Bank of India on 08.11.2016. Thus, the source of the alleged cash deposit has I.T.A. No.: 271/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prantosh Das. been successfully explained by the assessee. So far as the observations of the lower authorities that this cash has been deposited during demonetization period, we fail to find any merit since the demonetization scheme was announced in the evening on 08.11.2016 and the above stated transactions of cash withdrawal and cash deposit have been carried out during the working hours on 08.11.2016.
Therefore, out of the addition of Rs. 10,00,500/-, we are satisfied with the source explained by ld. Counsel for the assessee for the cash deposit of Rs. 10 lakh and the remaining Rs. 500/- being meagre amount and looking to the bank transactions and the past cash withdrawals cannot be doubted. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the finding ld. AO making addition u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 10,00,500/- and thus, reverse the finding of ld. CIT(A) and allow ground no. 2 raised by the assessee.