Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file income tax returns for any assessment year. Information was received about cash deposits during demonetization and total credits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer treated a portion of credits as gross turnover and quantified under-reported business income, leading to additions.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) did not provide any finding on the written submissions and other details filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) are justified, especially when the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions.
Sections Cited
133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.06.2024 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 79 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 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.
At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee made cash deposit of ₹.19,53,670/- during demonetization period and the assessee had total credit of ₹.70,70,231/- during the financial year 2016-17. The assessee did not file return of income for any assessment years. As per various details collected at various sources under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the Assessing Officer taken entire credits ₹.51,16,561/- [₹.70,70,231–₹.19,53,670] other than cash deposited during demonetization in assessee’s bank account as assessee’s gross turnover and 8% on the gross credits of ₹.4,09,325/- is quantified as the assessee’s under reported business income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined assessee’s total income at ₹.23,62,995/- after making addition of unexplained money deposited during demonetization period of ₹.19,53,670/- and under reported business income of ₹.4,09,325/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. AR Ms. D. Nidhi Jain, C.A. submits that the assessee was appointed for doing cash transaction, account opening, canvassing government and bank products, etc. on behalf of bank as Bank Mitra taking banking services to customers door step and for the above mentioned purposes, bank accounts were opened with Central bank of India, in which assessee facilitates deposits and withdrawal of money from the customer’s account. She drew our attention to page 14 of the paper book containing confirmation from Central bank of India towards appointment of the assessee as Business Correspondent. She also placed on record copy of appointment letter by AGS Management Services for appointment as bank Business Correspondent at page 15 and copy of contract with AGS Management Services at page 16 to 19 of the paper book and placed on record copy of the acknowledgement at page 8 & 9 of the paper book duly submitting all details along with written submissions before the first appellate authority on 07.06.2024. Thus, the ld. AR prayed for deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee raised various grounds as reproduced in para 3 of the impugned order and also the ld. CIT(A) admitted at para 4 that the assessee filed written submissions during the course of appellate proceedings. We also noted from the acknowledgement page 8 of the paper book containing the details of filing written submissions along with Annexure 1, 2, 3 & 4. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding over the written submissions and other details filed by the assessee in the form of Annexures and simply confirmed the assessment order is not justified. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for verification and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file the details, if any, to substantiate her claim before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.