Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2017-18 showing ₹2,90,590. The case was selected under CASS to verify cash deposits during demonetization. The AO found cash deposits of ₹46,33,000 in the assessee's bank account and added it as unexplained income under Section 69A, making an assessment under Section 144.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and fair play, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the AO for reassessment de novo, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment order passed under Section 144 without providing adequate opportunity of hearing is valid, and whether the addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash credit is justified without proper verification.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 143(2), 142(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 19.02.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 16.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition u/s. 69A of ₹46,33,000 as alleged unexplained cash credit representing deposits made to assessee's bank accounts against which withdrawals are also made, is wrong, erroneous, arbitrary, misconceived, excessive and deserves to be deleted or reduced. I.T.A. No.: 927/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saifa Molla.
For that the impugned assessment order u/s. 144 dated 26.12.2019 has been passed without granting sufficient and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and is otherwise bad in law, invalid, non-est and ab-initio void.
For that the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, rescind, substitute and/or submit additional ground/grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.”
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are that the assessee is an individual and had filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 showing total income of ₹2,90,590/-. The case was selected through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') to verify the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee submitted her response through e- proceedings but failed to furnish any evidence in support of the said cash deposits. On perusal of the bank account statement of the assessee obtained during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') found that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹46,33,000/- during the demonetization period in her bank account bearing No. 35798856134 maintained with the State Bank of India, Amtala Branch. A show cause notice was issued and served upon the assessee asking as to why the cash deposited to the tune of ₹46,33,000/- in the bank account during the demonetization period should not be treated as undisclosed income for the year under consideration. However, no response was received from the assessee and since the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposits during the demonetization period, the Ld. AO treated the sum of ₹46,33,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed order u/s 144 of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at I.T.A. No.: 927/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saifa Molla. ₹49,23,590/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 19.02.2025, held that during the appellate proceedings the assessee did not produce any new/additional documents to prove the source of cash deposited during the demonetization period amounting to ₹46,33,000/- and upheld the finding of the Ld. AO treating the same as deemed income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act for the year under consideration. Further, since proper opportunities were provided to the assessee to furnish written submission but the assessee failed to do so, the Ld. CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an individual and the assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee filed the details at the fag end of the time barring limitation, the show cause notice was issued in relation to the cash deposited in the bank account. The assessee explained the same as the turnover of the business. The notice was issued on 22.12.2019 and the date of hearing was 24.12.2019. The assessee has filed the details in July, 2019 as is evident in second para that the assessee furnished documents during the proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as per para 6 of the order which is reproduced below:
“6. The personal hearing through Video Conferencing, which was fixed on 16.12.2024 was rescheduled on 02.01.2025 at the request of the assessee. Due to technical issues in the VC system on 02.01.2025, the VC was rescheduled on 09.01.2025. On 09.01.2025, the VC could not be conducted therefore it was again rescheduled on 15.01.2025 at 12:30 pm, by issuing letter dated 11.01.2025, which was delivered on 13.01.2025. However, I.T.A. No.: 927/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saifa Molla. none attended on 15.01.2025 nor any request was made for rescheduling of the VC, therefore, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in personal hearing through Video Conferencing and the appeal is being decided based on the submissions and material available on record.”
The Ld. AR requested that as the assessee has sufficient evidence for the deposits in the bank account, the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO for furnishing the required explanation as the assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act and adequate opportunity was not provided.
We have considered the submission made. In the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Therefore, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd October, 2025. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 22.10.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 927/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saifa Molla. Copy of the order forwarded to:
Saifa Molla, Amgachia, Bishnupur, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, 700104. 2. ITO, Ward-26(3), Kolkata.
CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
Guard File. //// By order