AAKASH RAMESH KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2017-18
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’]
for assessment year
2017-18, raising grounds as reproduced as under:
Ground No 1: Opportunity of Hearing :
The Ld. CIT(A) not given proper opportunity of hearing before dismissing the said appeal. Only 1 notice given by the LD.
CIT(A) busy m
CIT(A),
No sec dismis
Ground No demonetizat
The CI accoun accoun
The CI assump the Ld reason that w purpos total un
The CI that ca
The CI has al assess
The CI cash expens withou not jus
The L disallo
NFAC
09.11.2
deposi disallo
2. At the threshold the impugned order afford proper and dismissing the appea was issued after an months, on 17.03.20
A ITA that after 5 years and 2 months on the month of March. No Physical notice giv
NFAC.
cond opportunity given by the Ld. CIT( sed the appeal which is unjustified and u
2: Addition u/s 69A for cash de tion worth Rs 40,41,500/-
IT(A), NFAC not justified in confirming t nt of cash deposits out of cash withdraw nt.
IT(A), NFAC confirmed the addition only mption presumption, estimation and own d. ITO Wd 20(1)(1) and without any b ns. The Ld. ITO Wd 20(1)(1) made own i withdrawn money has been utilised f se & unexplained income deposited in b njustified and unwarranted
IT(A), NFAC not considered the fact that th ash deposited is not withdrawn from the b
IT(A), NFAC not considered the facts th lowed to deposit the old currencies upto see has deposit the cash before due date.
IT(A), NFAC not justified in making assum withdrawn by the assessee has bee ses or investment. Only on the basis of ut any concrete evidence simply dismissin stified.
Ld. ITO WD 20(1)(4) had taken th wance of deposits and the same is confir as a date of deposits. If a deposit
2016 then he intend to allow but ited on Dec 2016 so disallow. So, wance itself is debatable.
d, the learned counsel for the as on the ground that the learned adequate opportunity of al. It was submitted that only a inordinate lapse of nearly five
025, and thereafter the appeal w
Aakash Ramesh Kothari
2
A No. 4057/MUM/2025
IT portal in the ven by the Ld.
(A) and simply unwarranted.
eposit during the addition on w from the bank on the basis of imagination of base or specific imaginary story for investment bank account is here is no proof bank.
hat government o 31.12.2016 &
mptions that the en utilized for of own theories ng the appeal is he criteria for rmed by CIT(A), was made on assessee has a reason for ssessee assailed d CIT(A) failed to hearing before a solitary notice e years and two was disposed of by order dated
1
opportunity. It was violative of the prin appeal deserves to b fresh adjudication.
3. We have heard placed on record.
culminated in the c under section 69A of “1. This appe
Mumbai pass
2. The groun u/s.69A of th amounts of c
Further, as m cash was 07/12/16 (Rs
(4,50,000), 1
(80,000). A pe consistency demonetisatio have been r
Jewellers foll
August 2016. person would large amount
The onus is o the cash with The assessee withdrawn du all probability to October 20
It is also seen immediately starting from A ITA
04.2025 without granting contended that such a course nciples of natural justice and be restored to the file of the lea d rival submissions and peruse The findings of the learned confirmation of the addition o f the Act, are reproduced as und eal is filed against the order of the ITO, W ed u/s143(3) of the I T Act, 1961 dated.2 nds of appeal object to addition of Rs he IT Act. 1961. The assessee had with cash on various dates in the month of A mentioned in the showcause noticeissued deposited on 05/12/16 (7,30,000), s.4,90,000), 06/12/2016 (Rs.8,90,000), 19/12/16 14/12/2016 (6,81,500) and erusal of the bank statement reveals tha in the withdrawal and deposit patt on and post-demonetisation period. Lar received on various dates from Auric lowed by large cash withdrawals in th . No cogent reason has been offered for d not keep on withdrawing cash in spi of cash in hand without any plausible re n the assessee to prove the recycling of fu hdrawn was not utilised for expenses or e failed to discharge this burden. Since th uring the early part of the year was not d y the cash withdrawn during the period A 016 was also utilised for the expenses or n that the cash of Rs. 40,41,500/- was n after demonetisation but was deposite 05/12/2016 to as late as 30/12/201 Aakash Ramesh Kothari 3 A No. 4057/MUM/2025 g any further e of action was , therefore, the arned CIT(A) for ed the material CIT(A), which of ₹40,41,500/- der: Ward20(1)(1), 21.12.2019. . 4041500/- hdrawn large August 2016. d by the AO, (7,20,000), 13/12/2016 d 30/12/16 at there is no tern in pre- rge amounts Bullion and he month of the same. A ite of having eason. und and that r investment. e entire cash deposited, in August 2016 r investment. not deposited ed very late 6, ie. over a span of 26 d cash on vario doubt that eit been involved tender. The ad 3.1 On a careful c impugned order of discussion with rega alleged non-complian produced before us afforded adequate op of sufficient time an principles of natural j be done but must ma be heard before an procedure. 3.2 In these circum substantial justice, w of the learned CIT(A) back to his file for fre due opportunity to evidences, and therea At the same time, operation and ensu without seeking unne A ITA days. The very act of the assessee in de ous dates as mentioned above clearly p ther the same was his unaccounted incom d in converting the demonetized currenc ddition of Rs.4041500 is confirmed.” consideration of the matter, w the learned CIT(A) does no ard to the issuance of notices nce on the part of the assess s demonstrates that the ass pportunity to substantiate its c nd opportunity strikes at the v justice. It is trite law that justic anifestly appear to have been do n adverse decision is a basi mstances, and in order to advan we deem it fit and proper to set ) on the issue in dispute and r esh adjudication. The learned C the assessee to file its su after decide the appeal in accor the assessee is directed to ure due compliance with the ecessary adjournments. Aakash Ramesh Kothari 4 A No. 4057/MUM/2025 epositing the prove beyond me or he had cy into legal we find that the ot contain any by him or the see. The record sessee was not case. The denial very root of the ce must not only one. The right to ic facet of fair nce the cause of aside the order remit the matter IT(A) shall grant ubmissions and rdance with law. extend full co- notices issued,
In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 23/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
A ITA the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 23/0
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Aakash Ramesh Kothari
5
A No. 4057/MUM/2025
is allowed for 09/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai