VIJAY KASHINATH SOMWANSHI,KALWA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2020-21
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.09.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld.
Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short
“Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2020-21. Shri Vijay Kashinath Somwanshi
2
2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) vide assessment order dated 25.09.2021 u/s 144 of the Act has made the addition of Rs.10,62,049/- on account of bank deposits in the G. Parshik Sahkari Bank Ltd. which was treated by the Assessee as unexplained and added the same in the income of the Assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal and claimed that during the assessment proceedings in the faceless scheme, the Assessee’s CA filed his reply and also verified his ITR electronically on 31.03.2021, however, the return filed by the Assessee was still not considered by the AO.
The Ld. Commissioner considering the claim of the Assessee affirmed the aforesaid addition of Rs.10,62,049/- by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee and holding as under:
“That no proof of sending the duly signed ITR-5 form to CPC
Bengaluru has been filed by the Assessee and from the submission filed by the Assessee it is seen that the said return was e-verified only on 07.10.2021 i.e. after completion of the assessment. Thus, the return filed by the Assessee cannot be considered as valid return because the last date of filing the ITR was 31.03.2021. Hence, the claim of the Assessee that AO did
Shri Vijay Kashinath Somwanshi
3
not consider the ITR filed by him is factually incorrect. Because in the absence of verification ITR submitted on income tax portal,
ITR is not complete and the AO cannot assess the same. The Assessee has not made any attempt to substantiate the deposits in the bank accounts or on account of particular business receipts. In the absence of any documentary evidence that such deposits are in the nature of business receipts, the Assessee cannot claim that it should be taxed as per the provision of section 44AD of the Act”.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has claimed that during the appellate proceedings, the Assessee had filed a belated income tax return u/s 139(4) of the Act by showing his business income u/s 44AD of the Act and therefore the Ld. Commissioner should have considered profit declared in the income tax return as income instead of gross profit receipts, which were credited to his bank accounts. Since the Assessee could not file the proper submission and documentary evidence, which are filed before this Court, the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the addition made by the AO. The Assessee due to lack of knowledge or miscommunication could not file the copies of invoices raised by his proprietary concern on his clients and Form 26AS before the authorities below, however, the documents have material bearing on the grounds of appeal and crucial for the substantial justice and therefore the same may be admitted as additional evidence. The Assessee in support of non Shri Vijay Kashinath Somwanshi
4
filing of the documents/additional evidence before the authorities below, has also filed duly sworn affidavit.
On the contrary the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee by supporting the orders passed by the Authorities below.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the orders passed by the authorities below. Admittedly, the Assessee before the authorities below failed to file relevant documentary evidence, which resulted into passing the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order more or less as ex-parte. As the documents filed by the Assessee goes to the root of the case and no prejudice shall be caused to the Revenue Department if the same are to be considered for proper and just decision of the case. Even otherwise in the absence of relevant documents the issue involved in the instant case remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, thus for the just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the AO for determination afresh by taking into consideration the documents as filed before this Court, which the Assessee undertakes to file before the AO. Shri Vijay Kashinath Somwanshi
5
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2025. (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.