Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
These are appeals by the assessee against respective orders of learned CIT(A) for concerned assessment years. Since the issues are common and connected and appeals were heard together, these are consolidated and disposed of by this common order.
Common issue raised in these appeals pertains to challenge to reopening and passing of ex-parte order under section 144 of the I.T. Act. On merits the issue challenged is addition under section 68 of amount of cash deposited in current account for Rs. 15,50,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 6,50,000/- for A.Y. 2012-13. For the sake of reference I am referring to A.Y. 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that earlier return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 25.7.2012. The same was reopened as information was received from Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv), Mumbai that the assessee-company has opened a bank account and in the said current account there is cash/non-cash transaction to the tune of Rs. 15,50,000/-. Notices issued to the assessee were not complied with, the Assessing Officer
2 M/s. Nalin Traders Pvt. Ltd. proceeded to pass an ex-parte order under section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer added the sum of Rs. 15,50,000/- holding that the assessee has not furnished details pertaining to financial transaction of Rs. 15,50,000/. Assessee’s challenged to reopening was dismissed by learned CIT(A), wherein ld.CIT(A) did refer that assessee has relied upon certain case laws but he did not deal with any of them. He referred to case certain other laws in rejection of reopening.
As regards merits also he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. He noted that the assessee has raised objection but did not refer what was the objection raised by the assessee. He referred that incriminating material was found by the Assessing Officer. I noted that this is totally unrelated issue. There is no whisper of any incriminating material by the Assessing Officer. This seems to have been cut and paste from some other order.
Further, before me learned Counsel of the assessee submitted paper book explaining transactions which were also claimed to have been submitted before learned CIT(A).
Upon careful consideration and hearing both the parties, I note that the addition in this case is financial transaction of Rs. 15,50,000/- in the current account. There is no mention as to what is the credit, what is the debit, what is cash transaction and what is non-cash. Without specifying anything the addition of entire transaction is totally unsustainable u/s. 68. Without specifying the nature of transaction of debit or credit, such an addition is not sustainable. Moreover, learned CIT(A) has not at all considered decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs Baichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67. Hence, in my considered opinion interest of justice will be served if matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer should consider the issue afresh by taking into account details now being submitted by the assessee and case laws and my observation hereinabove.
3 M/s. Nalin Traders Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.02.2022