Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual running a provision store, made significant cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer treated a portion of these deposits and investments in immovable property as unexplained income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not furnish necessary details to the CIT(A) despite opportunities. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering evidence to be submitted by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration with supporting evidence.
Sections Cited
148A, 148, 142(1), 1941A, 69, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee mainly challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) besides challenging issues on merits.
Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee is an individual, running a provision stores and filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring taxable income of ₹.14,51,170/-. As per information available with the Department, the assessee made cash deposits of ₹.4,58,30,000/- during demonetization period in bank account maintained with the Indian Bank. Accordingly, after passing order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act, besides, issuing notices under section 142(1) of the Act. After verification of details filed against notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposit during demonetization period to the tune of ₹.1,07,55,000/-, out of which, ₹.46,15,000/- were in SBNs. Since the assessee could not furnish satisfactory explanation with documentary evidence towards source of such cash deposit in SBNs, the Assessing Officer treated an amount to an extent of ₹.46,15,000/- as 3 income from undisclosed sources and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made payment of ₹.50,00,000/- towards purchase of immovable property (section 194IA of the Act). Since the assessee failed to furnish conclusive documentary evidence for the source of fund for purchase of immovable property against specific statutory notices, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. AR Shri Sricharan, C.A. submits that the assessee is running a provision store/grocery store, which always generate cash sales as it is a business of cash and carry on a day-to-day basis and moreover, not conversant with the e-proceedings and thereby, unable to respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). He also submits that the assessee is ready to furnish all details in support of the ground raised before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration by affording opportunity to the assessee.
The ld. DR Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT objected the submissions of the ld. AR by contending that the ld. CIT(A) had given various opportunities to the assessee, but, however, the assessee has not utilized the same in furnishing the details in support of the grounds raised by him. He supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, we note that the assessee could not furnish any details in support of the grounds raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue involved therein, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claims. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details in support of the grounds raised before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.