AVINASH AWHAD LEGAL HEIR OF EKNATH SHIVRAM ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1063/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 April 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) because the appellant had not filed necessary documents before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to establish the case and pass a speaking order on merits after providing an effective opportunity to the appellant.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed with a delay of almost two years due to the appellant, as a legal heir, not being privy to the case facts and not receiving the CIT(A)'s order. The appellant contested an addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- as unexplained income, claiming no such deposit was made. The appellant also argued that the bank statement showed only a Rs. 3 lakhs deposit, contradicting the department's claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- as unexplained income without proper inquiry and basis, and if the appellant's claim of only a Rs. 3 lakhs deposit is correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Pronounced: 17/04/2025

Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In this above captioned appeal, it is observed that there is a delay of almost two years in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The reason for filing the appeal with delay, it was stated that the appellant, as a legal heir does not know the facts of the case. Moreover, in the application for condonation of delay, it was stated by the legal heir that he has not received the copy of Ld. CIT(A)’s order and it has come to his notice only when the Department started recovery proceedings of the tax dues as per assessment order. In view of the same, the appellant prayed for condonation of delay and requested the Bench to proceed the case on merits. After going through the application for condonation of delay and the prayer of Ld. AR of the appellant, the Bench has decided to condone the delay.

2.

Coming to the merits of the case, the appellant filed an appeal with the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

1. 1) The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has an erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,00,0007- as unexplained income

2 Avinash Awhad (Legal Heir of Eknath Awhad) under section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of Cash deposited of Rs. 16,00,0007- in Saving bank account. 2) The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi failed to appreciate the fact that there was no such cash deposit of the said amount of Rs. 16,00,0007- in the bank account of the appellant in the financial year 2010-2011. 3) The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi failed to make any inquiry in respect of cash deposit from the bank branch and confirmed the addition without any basis. 4) The appellant prays that the additions made of Rs. 16,00,0007- to the income of the appellant in respect of cash deposit in the bank account be deleted as no such deposits have been made by the appellant in his bank account.

3.

From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that five notices were sent to the appellant to explain his case and there is no response to the notices. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Apart from this, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the case on merits too by stating that the appellant did not explain the sources of cash deposits of Rs. 16 lakhs in his savings bank account. The appellant did not even file a Return of Income in pursuance of notice issued by the department under section 148 of the I.T. Act. So, finally the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismiss the appeal of the appellant.

4.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order of Ld. CIT(A), an appeal was filed before the ITAT with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No. 1 and 2 of this order.

5.

During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that they have not deposited cash of Rs. 16 lakhs as alleged by the Department. A copy of bank statement of Bank of Maharashtra was filed before the ITAT by the Ld. AR which shows that there is a deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs only and hence, it was argued that the notices given by the Department were factually incorrect.

3 Avinash Awhad (Legal Heir of Eknath Awhad) 6. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities.

7.

After hearing both sides, it is decided to remit the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) as the appellant has not filed any of these documents before the first appellate authority. The appellant is directed to file all necessary documents before the Ld. CIT(A) to establish his case and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order on merits after giving an effective opportunity to the appellant.

8.

The appellant of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/04/2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →