Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a sole proprietor, filed his return for AY 2017-18. During scrutiny, the AO found substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period and added ₹1,23,000 and ₹30,000 under Section 68/115BBE, along with ₹13,307 for an undisclosed bank balance. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹1,23,000 but sustained the other two additions.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s deletion of ₹1,23,000 had attained finality. Regarding the sustained additions of ₹30,000 (Section 68) and ₹13,307 (undisclosed bank balance), the Tribunal restored these issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether unexplained cash credits and undisclosed bank balance additions were justified, and whether fresh examination by the AO with new evidence is warranted.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 80C, 80TTA, 68, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.07.2024 for the AY 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a sole proprietor of M/s. Ajit Auto Service, engaged in the business of selling two-wheelers and acting as an agent of Bajaj Finance Ltd., filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017–18, declaring total income of ₹3,12,430. The case was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The assessee disclosed total sales of
During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed substantial cash deposits made in the assessee’s bank accounts, including deposits during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). The assessee explained that, being an agent of Bajaj Finance Ltd., he collected instalments and due amounts from customers and deposited the same into his bank account before transferring them to Bajaj Finance Ltd. It was further submitted that a register containing details of 1,036 customers, including their names, addresses, and contact numbers, was maintained.
The Assessing Officer observed that Bajaj Finance Ltd. had received ₹3,08,20,890 from the assessee’s bank account through NEFT. However, total deposits made during the year amounted to ₹76,60,677. Not being fully satisfied with the explanation, the Assessing Officer treated the following amounts as unexplained cash credits under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act:
₹1,23,000 deposited in State Bank of India account, and ₹30,000 deposited in Oriental Bank of Commerce account. 05. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that a closing bank balance of ₹13,307 as on 31.03.2017 was not disclosed in the balance sheet. Since no satisfactory explanation was offered, this amount was also added to the total income as underreported income. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was determined at ₹4,78,737.
Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 194 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed a petition explaining the reasons for delay. After considering the reasons, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
During hearing, the assessee filed certain additional evidences in support of his claim, which could not be filed before the CIT(A). It was submitted that these documents are crucial for proper adjudication of the issues sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate his claim before the lower authority.
We have heard the submissions and perused the materials on record. It is seen that the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹1,23,000, which has attained finality and requires no interference. However, the issues relating to addition of ₹30,000 under section 68 on account of cash deposit in Oriental Bank of Commerce and addition of ₹13,307 towards undisclosed bank balance, require fresh examination in view of the new evidences filed by the assessee before us. In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore these two issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after considering the additional evidences and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with the limited direction to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the two issues mentioned above. The relief granted by the CIT(A) in respect of ₹1,23,000 shall remain undisturbed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.11.2025.