Loading judgment…
Facts
The AO made additions to the assessee's income for AY 2017-18, including Rs. 20,11,000/- for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(A) sustained this specific addition, leading the assessee to appeal to the ITAT, claiming that Rs. 9,00,000/- was deposited before demonetization and the source of funds is explained. The appeal was filed with a 33-day delay, for which a condonation petition was submitted.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 33-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee possesses considerable documentation, the Tribunal remanded the matter of the Rs. 20,11,000/- addition back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine whether part of the amount was deposited pre-demonetization and if there's adequate justification for the source of the entire addition, providing ample opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the sustained addition of Rs. 20,11,000/- for unexplained cash deposits is justified, considering claims of pre-demonetization deposit and explained sources of funds; and condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Sections Cited
253, 250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Partha Sanyal, Flat 1-B, Anupama, 1st Floor, 22A, Rajani Sen Road, Kolkata - 700026 [PAN: APKPS2354G] .....................…...…………….... Appellant vs. ACIT/DCIT(IT)-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110 Shanti Pally, Kasba,’ Kolkata – 700107 ...............…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : D. Saha, Advocate Department represented by : Loviesh Shelly, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 04.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 07.02.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case, there is a delay of 33 days for which a petition for condonation has been filed by the assessee as under:
“I enclose here with an Appeal Under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-22 of Income Tax, Kolkata relating to the Assessment year 2017-18 made Under Section 250 of the Act on 13/05/2024 which was communicated to me on 13/05/2024 although the Appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the 11th July 2024 counting the period of sixty days from the aforesaid date of communication of the order but it could not be filed because I being a NRI as per Income Tax Act, 1961 was out of India on my occupational duties from dated 20/08/2023 to 19/07/2024 duly supported by [Passport Immigration stamps of Departure and Arrival as enclosed herewith. On my arrival in India I immediately devoted myself to the cause of arranging necessary paper works in filing the Appeal which took some time due to the fact that the Appeal relates to the Financial Year 2016-17 moreover my stay was Partha Sanyal shortlived due to an work related exigency for which I had to return back to Dubai, UAE on 25/07/2024 only being able to come back as on 06/08/2024 duly supported by Passport Immigration stamps of Departure and Arrival as enclosed herewith. I, therefore pray that the delay of 34 days in filing the Appeal may be condoned under sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Appeal may be admitted for hearings on merits.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
1.2 The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-22 (hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A), dated 13.05.2024.
In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 144 of the Act dated 06.12.2019. In this order, the AO made additions as under:
(a) Rs. 20,11,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposited in bank during demonetization period.
(b) Rs. 69,04,788/- was added as income, to be taxed in India, by virtue of employment with a shipping company
(c) Rs. 1,99,271/- as NRE interest.
(d) Rs. 32,600/- added by way of interest received in NRO account.
The AO has mentioned in page 4 (table 2) that four opportunities given to the assessee were not availed of and hence the order was passed u/s 144 of the Act.
2.1 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where he could obtain substantial relief with respect to several additions but was unsuccessful in so far as the addition of Rs. 20,11,000/- pertaining to alleged deposits during demonetization period was concerned.
Accordingly, aggrieved with this sustaining of the impugned addition, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds:
Partha Sanyal “1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
2. Cash deposit for Rs. 900000/- only before launch of “Operation Clean Money”. 3.1 Before us, the Ld. AR presented considerable facts and relied on several authorities with the help of his paper book and averred that both the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) had fallen in error with respect to the claim that adequate presentation of facts was not made before either of them. The Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee has moved for admitting additional evidence relating to the cash deposits before the ITAT in a bid to establish that at least Rs. 9,00,000/- were deposited before the launch of Operation Clean Money. The Ld. AR also pleaded that the sources of funds which have been used for making the impugned addition are all explained.
3.2. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the orders of authorities below and have also gone through the details filed through the paper book. We have also perused the additional evidence filed before us in justification of Rs. 9,00,000/- deposited prior to the demonetization period. It is clear that the assessee has considerable documentation to enable the Ld. AO to arrive at a fair and just conclusion regarding the impugned addition. Accordingly, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for examining the documents pertaining to the addition once again and establish the facts from two angles:
(i) Whether part of the amount was deposited in the bank prior to the demonetization period; and (ii) Whether there is adequate justification for the source of the entire addition of Rs. 20,11,000/- or not.
The AO would provide ample opportunity to the assessee and in turn, the assessee would do well to avail of such opportunities to establish the facts of his case.
Order pronounced in the court on 07.02.2025