Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the NFAC, which was delayed by 39 days. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal. The case involved cash deposits made by the assessee, who claimed to be an employee of M/s. Hindustan Associates, recovering loans for M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) added a significant portion of these cash deposits to the assessee's income under section 69A of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the case was decided ex-parte at the CIT(A) level due to non-prosecution and that the AO had not properly considered the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were from disclosed sources and if the assessment proceedings were conducted properly considering the assessee's submissions and opportunities provided.
Sections Cited
143(2), 69A, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the NFAC [learned CIT(A)], Delhi, vide DIN :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1074170534(1) dated 07.03.2025.
At the outset of hearing, it was noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is delayed by 39 days. In this regard, assessee has filed an affidavit dated 08.07.2025 stating the reason for delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal. On going through the above affidavit, we noted that the assessee had sufficient reason and reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji
Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 08.02.2017 declaring income of Rs.4,70,920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine whether the cash deposits have been made from disclosed sources. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2017 was issued and served to the assessee. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and during the course of assessment proceedings, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. Thereafter, the AO obtained bank statement from the bank. Thereafter, further opportunities were granted to the assessee but there was no response. Therefore, final show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 07.11.2018 and time was granted till 19.11.2018. In response to the notice, assessee filed written submissions on 20.11.2018 stating that he is employee of M/s. Hindustan Associates as Team Leader for Recovery of overdues of two wheeler loans granted by M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd., and under his guidance 12- 15 collection executives are working who recover the overdue collections from the customers by cash and remit the same to assessee’s SB Accounts (The Karnataka Bank and IDBI Bank). Thereafter, the said amount is remitted to M/s. Bajaj Finance in favour of Hindustan Associates. In this regard, cash deposit slip to prove that the amount is deposited to Bajaj Finance in favour of Hindustan Associates of Rs.1,11,95,619/- is submitted. The AO examined the slips and he was not satisfied and the assessee also did not submit any agreement. The AO noted that submission of assessee was not satisfactory. Accordingly, he added cash deposit of Rs.1,06,17,581/- under section 69A of the Act.
Page 3 of 4 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued notice on the registered email ID but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Therefore, appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that notice issued by the learned CIT(A) were not served to the assessee or might have settled in the spam folder. Therefore, assessee could not represent his case and before the AO, assessee furnished the documents and he has rejected. There was no intimation to disregard the statutory notices issued by the Revenue authority and he undertook that if a chance is given to the assessee, assessee shall represent his case with cogent documents for substanting the cash deposits in his bank account.
On the other hand, learned DR strongly objected for giving one more chance to the assessee. The repetitive disregarding of the notices issued by the Revenue authorities are very much clear from the Order of both the authorities below, therefore, the AO was bound to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act.
Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire materials available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that case has been decided ex-parte at the CIT(A) level for non prosecution by the assessee .The AO has not considered the assessee’s submissions Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of JAO for fresh consideration and JAO is directed to decide the issue as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that assessee shall co-operate with the Revenue and not seek
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.