MOHD MUNTZIR,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- PRATAPGARH, PRATAPGARH

ITA 24/ALLD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 September 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grievance regarding the denial of an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard could not be brushed aside. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised specific grounds challenging the additions under Section 69A and had claimed specific sources for the deposits. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without making any independent inquiry or verifying the assessee's claims. The Revenue also failed to place any material on record to prove verification attempts. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and to subserve the interest of principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the assessee's submissions afresh on merits. The grounds raised in the appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions themselves, as the case was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohd Muntzir, a bank correspondent, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring Rs. 3,17,170. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated limited scrutiny and made additions of Rs. 4,02,500 for cash deposits during demonetization and Rs. 1,60,500 for other cash deposits, assessing total income at Rs. 8,80,170. The assessee appealed to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits due to non-submission of requisite information. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was delayed by three days. The ITAT condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal in limine without affording an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,02,500 made under Section 69A as unexplained money, when the assessee claimed the source was cash withdrawal from the bank in September 2016? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 69A) 3. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,60,500 made under Section 69A as unexplained money, when the assessee claimed the source was business receipts from various customers? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 69A) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and dismissed the appeal without considering submissions, relying on CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt Ltd. The assessee claimed the additions under Section 69A were unsustainable as the sources of deposits (cash withdrawal and business receipts) were explained. The assessee contended that the additions were made without proper appreciation of facts and evidence and in violation of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below, arguing that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits during demonetization. The Revenue contended that explanations regarding cash withdrawals and business receipts were not substantiated by cogent documentary evidence, thus justifying the additions under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Jaiswal, C.A
For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Aurangabad, dated 29.11.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. BECAUSE the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal in limine without affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2 BECAUSE the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs 4,02,500/- made on account of cash deposit in the bank account no 032983800000838 during demonetization period by Invoking

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →