Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income declaring ₹16,14,770. The case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during demonetization and capital gains exemptions. Despite a notice under section 143(2) and requests for documents, the assessee failed to comply, leading the AO to assess total income at ₹80,94,813.
Held
The Tribunal noted that both the lower authorities concluded that the assessee failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee also failed to make proper compliance with notices. While new documents were submitted at the appeal stage, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits is justified, and whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity to furnish documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
143(2), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.06.2024 for the AY 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹16,14,770/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny on the reason of cash deposit during demonetization period and deduction/ exemption from capital gains. The notice u/s 143(2) has been served but the assessee did not make any compliance. The assessee has been requested to furnish the documents but assessee again failed to comply. The ld. AO assessed the total income at ₹80,94,813/-, when there were no sufficient
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the ld. AR challenges the very impugned order, thereby submitting that the addition u/s 68 of the Act of the alleged ground of unexplained cash deposit to bank account disregarding regularly maintained books of accounts is wrong, erroneous and mis-conceived. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee made submission but that was not properly appreciated by the authorities below. The ld. AR has filed paper books in support of his contention before the Tribunal.
Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the order of the lower authorities. 05. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsel of the respected parties, we have perused the order of the ld. lower authorities. In the assessment order, the ld. AO has stated that notice u/s 143(2) has been served but the assessee did not make any compliance. It has further been stated by the ld. AO that some specific documents asked from the assessee but assessee has filed only bank statements and failed to comply the notices regarding the documents. It has further been stated by the ld. AO that the assessee made only part compliances. The ld. AO in its operative portion has clearly stated that till date of passing of the order the assessee did not make any compliance in respect of above show cause nor furnished documents as asked for. We have gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT (A) in its order has also held that in spite of opportunity given by the ld. AO, the assessee failed to adduce any documentary evidences to prove the source of cash deposits. The assessee could not discharge the basic
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2025.