MOHAMMED JUNAID YUSUF RINDANI,MUMBAI vs. WARD25(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6860/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 April 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination of bank deposits and cash book to verify the source of cash. The assessee claimed to have filed an offline return with bank statements, which were not considered by the AO or CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against an order for assessment year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs. 68,83,300 was made for cash deposits. The AO issued a notice u/s 148 stating no return was filed, and based on portal information, made the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash deposits was made without proper examination of the assessee's evidence and whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sharma
For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl
Hearing: 09/04/2025Pronounced: 22/04/2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 29/10/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 for the A.Y.2014-15.

2.

In the grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.68,83,300/- made u/s.69A in respect of cash deposits in bank.

1.

1. Mohammed Junaid Yusuf Rindani 3. The brief facts are that the ld. AO has issued a notice u/s.148 on 31/03/2021 stating that assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y.2014-15 and as per the information received on insight portal of the department, assessee has entered into financial transaction wherein there were cash deposits in the bank account for sum of Rs.68,83,300/- since there was no reply and no return of income was filed by the assessee, the ld. AO made the entire addition in the cash deposits.

4. Before the ld. CIT (A) it was stated that assessee is engaged in the business of labour contracts and has filed return of income offline mode on 31/03/2015, the copy of which was submitted before the ld. AO also. Further, it was stated that assessee in response to the show-cause notice before the AO has filed offline copy of ITR alongwith bank statement and also made further submissions in reply to the show-cause notice which included cash book, cash flow bank statement and copy of ITR. The assessee has also asked for video hearing which was denied by the AO. However, the ld. CIT (A) noted that despite multiple opportunities, assessee has not furnished any details nor any adjournment application. Accordingly, he has dismissed the appeal exparte stating that upholding appeal made by the ld. AO.

5. Before us ld. Counsel submitted that assessee could not receive the notices through e-mail and assessee was not aware of the notices which were sent through e-mail. However, before the ld. AO assessee had submitted the bank statement from which it Mohammed Junaid Yusuf Rindani can be seen that only Rs.25,29,700/- was deposited in the bank account and not Rs.68,83,300/-, therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO itself is unanimous. Further, all these deposits are duly substantiated by the cash book wherein assessee had disclosed his business income from labour contract business.

6.

After considering the relevant material placed on record, it is seen that ld. AO has noted that no reply / return of income has been filed where as in the statement of facts filed before the ld. CIT (A) it has been stated that assessee has filed return of income off line on 31/03/2015 alongwith bank statement of both the bank accounts with Jammu & Kashmir bank being account No.906 and 1317. None of these documents furnished offline has been considered by the ld. AO. From the perusal of the statement, it is seen that the total cash deposits are only Rs.25,29,700/- on various dates which are as under:-

Date Bank A/c A/c Amount No. 03-04-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 500000 09-04-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 28000 18-04-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 123000 02-05-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 59000 09-05-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 68200 29-06-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 150000 17-08-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 100000 Mohammed Junaid Yusuf Rindani 04-09-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 100000 05-09-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 3000 25-09-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 185000 19-11-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 12000 28-11-2023 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 4300 16-12-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 32000 24-02-2014 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 108000 27-03-2014 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 500000 28-03-2013 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 906 500000 Total 2472500 11-07- Jammu & Kashmir Bank 1317 20000 2013 12-11- Jammu & Kashmir Bank 1317 14200 2013 13-12- Jammu & Kashmir Bank 1317 23000 2013 Total 57200

7.

Further, before us ld. Counsel also filed the summary of cash book which is as under:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT PARTICULARS AMOUNT OPENING BALANCE 5,89,121.21 CAPITAL WITH 8,25,000.00 B/F MRK ENTERPRISES Mohammed Junaid Yusuf Rindani CASH WITHDRAW 25,56,238.00 CASH 24,72,500.00 FROM J& K BANK 1317 DEPOSIT IN J& K BANK 906 CASH WITHDRAW 39,10,939.00 CASH 57,200.00 FROM J& K BANK 906 DEPOSIT IN J& K BANK 1317 LABOUR CHARGES 7,42,003.00 DRAWINGS 59,86,000.00 RECD. CAPITAL WITH ACE 22,00,000.00 SALARIES 1,52,000.00 ASSOCIATES CONVEYANCE 15,000.00 MISC. 16,000.00 EXPENSES BALANCE C/F 4,74,601.21 TOTAL 99,98,301.21 TOTAL 9,98,301.21

8.

Since these documents have not been examined or verified by the ld. AO and neither assessee had appeared before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. AO who shall examine the bank deposit in the banks as per the bank statements as well as cash book maintained by the assessee to examine the source of cash. The assessee is also directed to cooperate during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 22nd April, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →