BHAULA BALWANTRAO TATHE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(7), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1325/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 December 2023AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. This was to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case and explain the source of the cash deposits.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 14,42,000 in cash during demonetization, claiming it was from retirement benefits received over a decade earlier. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained income. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were adequately explained as arising from retirement benefits. The procedural issue of an ex parte order being passed without a proper hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the ex parte order dated 09-10-2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.14,42,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.69A of the Act towards cash deposit in bank accounts.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee retired from Maharashtra State Electricity Board on 31-08-2003, where he was working as an Establishment Officer. During the demonetization period relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee made certain cash deposits totaling to Rs.14,42,000/- in six accounts maintained in banks and cooperative societies. On being called upon to explain the source of deposit, the assessee submitted the same to be arising from his retirement benefits. Not convinced, the AO refused to accept the same because there was a difference of approximately thirteen years in the receipt of retirement benefits and the alleged deposits in the bank account. In the first appeal, the assessee remained absent, which led to the passing of the ex parte order.

4.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of assessee despite notice. I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal on merits ex parte qua the assessee.

5.

Admittedly, the assessee deposited cash of Rs.14,42,000/- in his bank account in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. However, the source of the same was not properly explained. The assessee retired more than a decade ago.

Ground of appeal states that the assessee deposited the cash out of his retirement benefits and also certain agricultural income. In view of the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order, in these peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A) for passing the order afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I order accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th December, 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 →