HITESH PRAVINBHAI RANA,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARDOLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 428/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a 11-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's business of commission income and the need for natural justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer with a cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a recharge coupon retailer, filed a return declaring income of Rs. 2,89,069. The Assessing Officer treated cash deposits of Rs. 1,05,68,116 and bank interest as unexplained income, determining total income at Rs. 1,08,62,410. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 95,31,400.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits and bank interest were correctly treated as unexplained income, and if the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC,Section 270A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 428/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Hitesh Pravinbhai Rana Income Tax Officer (Individual) Ward-1, Varunwadi, Golwad, Vs Bardoli Vyarat, Surat Gujarat-394650 PAN: AIVPR1380F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Parin Shah, C.A. Revenue Represented: Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 05-05-2026 Date of pronouncement : 10-07-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 04.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee explained by way of a notarized

I.T.A No. 428//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Hitesh Pravinbhai Rana vs. ITO

affidavit. Thus the delay of 11 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the cases, the assess is an individual and retailer of recharge coupon of (M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. ) received from customers and cash deposited in bank and transfers to the Idea Cellular Ltd. Thus, the assessee received commission from the cellular company. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017- 18 on 29.09.2017, declaring total income of Rs. 2,89,069/- which is treated as defective return. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return in ITR No. 4 on 24.01.2018 declaring the same total income. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and various notices and final show cause notice were issued to the assessee, which were not responded, thereby the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit and cash entries in the bank account maintained by the assessee of Rs. 1,05,68,116/- and also bank interest of Rs. 5,229/- as unexplained income and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,08,62,410/-. The AO also Taxed the above income at 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition of Rs. 95,31,400/- being cash deposits made in the bank account, which was not substantiated with proper evidences. 5. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissed appeal ex-parte. Appellant prays that appeal may be set aside to file of AO or CIT(A) as your honours deems fit.

I.T.A No. 428//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Hitesh Pravinbhai Rana vs. ITO

3.

Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,05,68,116/- of credit in bank account by invoking section 68 of the Act ignoring fact that appellant is earning commission income which was correctly offered in return of income. 4. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 5229/- of interest income. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A is justified. 7. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in taxing addition at higher rate as per section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified.”

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee filed before us, a paper book which carries the return of income of 26AS statement summary of transaction and bank statement maintained by the assessee. Thus, Learned counsel pleaded that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to explain the cash deposits and the commission earned by the assessee in the recharge coupon business.

7.

Per contra, Learned Senior DR appearing for the Revenue brought to our notice that the assessee did not cooperate during assessment proceedings as well appellate proceedings. Hence, having cost be imposed for setting aside the matter back to the file of JAO.

8.

We have given thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including paper book filed by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is in recharge coupon business with the Idea Cellular Ltd. which is also reflected in 26AS. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter bank to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by imposing cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order.

I.T.A No. 428//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 4 Hitesh Pravinbhai Rana vs. ITO

Upon production to the receipt of payment of cost, we direct to Ld. JAO to pass fresh order. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this final opportunity and produce all relevant materials, documents before the Ld. JAO. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under the provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 10/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat : Dated 10/07/2026 *Santosh आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →