Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the NFAC order for AY 2022-23, contending that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by relying on facts and findings from AY 2015-16, despite the current appeal concerning an addition of Rs. 56.80 Lakhs under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits in AY 2022-23. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) violated natural justice and passed a non-speaking order, failing to consider the distinctness of assessment years and the explanations provided for the cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) considered grievances pertaining to AY 2015-16 (referring to additions under Sections 68 and 56(2)(vii)) instead of the specific AY 2022-23 issue regarding the cash deposit. Concluding that the First Appellate Authority decided the appeal on wrong facts, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal based solely on the grounds pertaining to AY 2022-23. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for AY 2022-23 by relying on facts and findings from AY 2015-16 and failing to consider the specific grounds and evidence related to the unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 56.80 Lakhs for the relevant assessment year.
Sections Cited
69A, 68, 56(2)(vii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 17/01/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2022-23.
The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the specific facts, issues, and grounds relevant to the Assessment Year 2022-23, and instead, relying entirely on the facts and findings of AY 2015-16. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in failing to appreciate that the additions of Rs. 56,80,000 were made in the assessment order for AY 2022-23 under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the additions involved in AY 2015-16 were under section 68 of Rs. 10,85,690 on account of agricultural income and section 56(2)(vii) of Rs. 13,33,16,700 which are entirely different in nature and scope.
2 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without addressing the contentions, evidence, and legal arguments specifically raised by the appellant for AY 2022-23.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by passing a non-speaking order, which is devoid of any discussion, analysis, or findings regarding the appellant's grounds of appeal
for AY 2022-23.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that each assessment year is independent and separate, and therefore, reliance on findings from AY 2015-16 to decide the appeal for AY 2022-23 is unjustified and contrary to settled judicial principles.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the impugned addition of Rs. 56,80,000 made by the AO representing unexplained cash deposits in bank is erroneous as the said cash deposits are partly out of earlier withdrawals and partly out of agricultural income of the appellant and therefore are out of sources that were duly explained to the AO during the assessment proceedings. In view of the same, the addition of Rs. 56,80,000 deserves to be deleted.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
3. The peculiar facts and circumstances are that while deciding the appeal of the assessee at page 5 para 5.2. of his order, the ld. CIT(A) has considered the grievance pertaining to AY 2015-16. Similarly, the grievance referred in Ground No. 2 & 3 also pertain to AY 2015-16 whereas the grievance before the ld. CIT(A) related to the cash deposit of Rs. 56.80 Lakhs.
4. It appears that the ld. First Appellate Authority has decided the appeal on wrong facts and, therefore, we remit the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on the grounds pertaining to AY 2022-23 only.