Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income and was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during demonetization and investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer treated a significant amount of cash deposit as unexplained money due to lack of substantiation and completed the assessment.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide substantiating documents to the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal should be allowed to provide further evidence to substantiate cash deposits made during demonetization, despite previous opportunities being missed.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 143(2), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI.KESHAV DUBEY
O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the NFAC, CIT(A)under section 250 of the Act, dated 09.08.2024.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 06.04.2018 declaring income of Rs.16,39,150/-. Return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and case was selected for scrutiny through CASS reason being cash deposited during demonetization period and investment in immovable property. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee and other statutory notices were issued. Assessee furnished copy of sale deeds, copies of invoice, bank statement, copy of ITR, etc., and it was found that assessee maintained 4 bank accounts in 4 different banks where Rs.48,16,000/- cash was deposited during demonetization period but the assessee failed to substantiate with Page 2 of 3 documentary evidence regarding deposit of cash. For want of documentary evidence amount of Rs.49,68,000/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and income was assessed at Rs.64,5,150/- and completed assessment on 30.12.2019.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) issued several notices but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Thereforelearned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee on the basis of material available before him.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the AO and submitted that notice issued by the CIT(A) might have settled in spam folder and requested for one more chance and undertook that assessee will substantiate her case with documentary evidence.
The learned DR relied on the Order of lower authorities and submitted that several chances were given by the learned CIT(A) but assessee could not notice.
Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to substantiate her claim with cogent material / evidences and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.