PRABODH RANJAN DEY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(4), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2012-13
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In the instant case, as per the CIB data, it was observed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the Assessee had deposited cash of Rs.24,60,000/- in saving bank account maintained with State Bank of India during the year under consideration and therefore he, by issuing statutory notices asked the Assessee to provide the details,
Mr. Prabodh Ranjan Dey
2
however, the Assessee failed to provide any detail and made no compliance in any of the notices. Consequently, the AO, ultimately made the addition of Rs.24,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, as per impugned order, only submitted the ledger of the different heads for the period 01.04.2011 till 31.03.2012, but not any single material evidence, corroborating the ledger entries. The Assessee has also not submitted any proof regarding business activities and supporting bills/invoices in support of sales and purchase entries mentioned in the ledger. And therefore the Ld. Commissioner ultimately upheld the aforesaid addition on finding no reason to accept the claim of the Assessee as genuine explanation to the cash deposits under consideration.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, in appeal before this Tribunal.
Heard the parties and given thoughtful considerations to rival claims of the parties and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It appears from para no.4 of the impugned order that the Assessee furnished copy of books of account, balance sheet, profit & loss account and computation of income for the year under consideration. Further, the Assessee also submitted that the Assessee craves leave to furnish further details, if any required with regard to the passing of order in this case. However, the Ld. Commissioner by holding that not a single material evidence corroborating ledger entries and proof regarding business activities and supporting bills/invoices qua sale and purchase entries, filed by the Assessee, whereas from para no.4 it appears that the Assessee filed the relevant details which have not been considered by the Ld. Commissioner. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and Mr. Prabodh Ranjan Dey
3
circumstances, for the just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.