ANKUR PANKAJ DESAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 34(1)(6), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3308/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 April 2025AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the relevant facts and noted that the AO had resorted to an ex-parte assessment due to the assessee's non-compliance. While the CIT(A) had called for a remand report on additional evidence, it appeared that the assessee's replies were not examined and adjudicated properly. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the submissions, explanations, and evidence furnished by the assessee in the correct perspective. Following the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire issue back to the AO for a proper examination of the facts of the case in light of the assessee's replies. Both the Authorized Representative and the Departmental Representative did not oppose this proposal. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the issue afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the assessee was expected to make proper compliance. No specific finding was given on the merits of the addition or the alternative plea regarding peak credit.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ankur Pankaj Desai, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which upheld an addition of Rs. 8,80,400 made by the Income Tax Officer (AO), Ward-34(1)(6), Mumbai. This addition pertained to unexplained cash credit under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The AO had passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 due to the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO's order despite calling for a remand report on additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The assessee is a salaried individual who filed a return of income of Rs. 5,27,720. The dispute centers on cash payments made towards credit card bills.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 8,80,400 as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is illegal, unlawful, and against the Act, as upheld by the CIT(A)? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in treating cash deposits as unexplained cash credits without providing an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? Assessee's contentions: - Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) properly considered the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the sources of payment for credit card bills, which were allegedly from contributions from friends. - The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's findings without proper inquiry and independent satisfaction by the AO. - The CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 8,80,400. - Alternatively, the CIT(A) erred in not restricting the addition to the extent of the peak credit. Revenue's contentions: - The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below, stating that the assessee could not establish the payment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Talera, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 23.04.2025Pronounced: 29.04.2025

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 26.04.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] pertaining to assessment order u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 22.12.2019 as passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-34(1)(6), Mumbai for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. Page 2 Α.Υ. 2017-18 Ankur Pankaj Desai, Mumbai

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1.

1 The order passed u/s 250 dated 26-02-2024 for A.Y. 2019-20 by CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.8,80,400/- made by AO towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the Act.

1.

2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in treating cash deposits as unexplained cash credits without providing an opportunity of hearing so that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice and impugned order deserves to be quashed. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the submissions, explanations and evidences in right perspective. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding the findings of AO towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the substance of submissions and evidences produced during the course of proceedings. That Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding the findings of AO in as much as that there is lack of inquiry on part of AO and findings of AO is misplaced on independent satisfaction by AO. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the additions of Rs.8,80,400 towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act. Without prejudice and in alternative, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not restricting the additions to the extent of peak credit.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a salaried person having filed ROI of Rs 5,27,720/-. The only ground pertains to the addition made in respect of credit card bills paid in cash amounting to Rs 8,80,400/- u/s 69A of the Act as the assessee did not make compliance in the assessment proceedings leading to the AO resorting to ex parte assessment. In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO although he called for remand report from the AO in respect of the explanation furnished by the assessee before him.

4.

Before us the ld.Authorized Representative argued that neither the AO nor the ld.CIT(A) considered the explanation offered by the assessee during proceedings before them. The explanation regarding the sources of such payment of credit card bills from contributions from friends was brushed aside.

5.

Per contra the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below stating that the assessee could not establish the payment.

6.

We have carefully considered the relevant facts of the case. It is evident from the records that the AO resorted to ex parte assessment on account of non-compliance by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Although the ld.CIT(A) did call for a remand report on the additional evidences furnished by the assessee before him, it appears to us that the replies of the assessee were not examined and adjudicated properly. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the submissions, explanations and evidences furnished by the assessee in right perspective. In such a situation and following the principles of natural justice, in the course of hearing of the appeal, we proposed to remand the entire issue back to the ld.AO for proper examination of facts of the case vis-a-vis the replies submitted by the assessee. Both the ld.AR and the ld.DR did not oppose this proposal. We therefore, remand the issue back to the file of the ld.AO with a direction to consider the entire issue afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee in this regard. Needless to state the assessee would make proper compliance before him. Page 4 Α.Υ. 2017-18 Ankur Pankaj Desai, Mumbai

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2025. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 29.04.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno PRABHASH SHANKAR (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →