LATE. MOHAMMAD AFZALUDDIN QURAISHI REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (LR) MOHAMMAD MASIHUDDIN QU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
PER MANJUNATHA G. :
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.09.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National
Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018. 2
ITA.No.331/Hyd./2025
Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, deriving income from the business in the name of M/s. Hyderabad Service Station, e-filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 07.11.2017, declaring total income of Rs.6,30,310/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for Complete Scrutiny under "CASS" to verify the cash deposits during the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that, the assessee has total cash deposit of Rs.1,18,10,230/- into three bank accounts held with Vijaya Bank [i.e., two accounts] and HDFC Bank. The Assessing Officer called-upon the assessee to file relevant evidences. Since, the assessee has not furnished any evidence to substantiate the source for cash deposit, the Assessing Officer treated total cash deposit into three bank accounts amounting to Rs.1,18,10,230/- as unexplained and made addition u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. 3. On being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A).
3
ITA.No.331/Hyd./2025
Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, he is engaged in the business of retail dealer of petrol pump under the name and style of “M/s. Hyderabad Service
Station” and the source for cash deposit is out of his sales for the relevant period. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) issued notice on various occasions and called-upon the assessee to file relevant evidences in support of it’s case. Since, there was no compliance from the assessee, the learned CIT(A) passed ex-parte appellate order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate-Learned
Counsel for the Assessee referring to screen-shot downloaded from ITBA portal submitted that, the assessee has filed all details including relevant bank account statements and cash book to explain source for cash deposit
4
ITA.No.331/Hyd./2025
and also filed various details before the Assessing Officer on three occasions. The Assessing Officer without considering the relevant details filed by the assessee, made addition towards cash deposit by observing that, the assessee has not filed any details. Further, no doubt, the assessee has not responded to notices issued by the learned CIT(A), however, the assessee has explained the source for cash deposit by filing relevant details before the learned CIT(A).
The learned CIT(A) also without considering the relevant details, has simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that, the matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain it’s case.
6. Shri Gurpreet Singh, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain as to why he has not submitted any details before the authorities. Further, although, the assessee claims to have filed various details, but, going by 5
ITA.No.331/Hyd./2025
the paper book filed by the assessee, it is impossible to upload so much data as claimed by the assessee. Since the assessee claims to have filed various details and the Assessing Officer has not considered relevant details filed by the assessee, the matter may be remitted back to the file of learned CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain it’s case.
7. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below.
The Assessing Officer made addition towards cash deposit of Rs.1,18,10,230/- on the ground that, assessee has not furnished any details in support of it’s explanation for source of cash deposit into bank account. It was the argument of the Counsel for the Assessee in light of screen- shot taken from ITBA portal that, the appellant has filed various details including extract of cash book, in response to notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 14.11.2019,
28.11.2019 and 12.12.2019. The assessee has filed paper book and claimed that, all these evidences has been placed before the Assessing
Officer during the course of 6
ITA.No.331/Hyd./2025
assessment proceedings, but, the Assessing Officer has not considered any of the documents while making the additions towards cash deposits. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee could not file any details, which is evident from the ex-parte appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A).
However, the learned CIT(A) not considering any of the details filed by the assessee and also has not considered the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer while deciding the issue. Since the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution and not considered the issue on merits in light of relevant evidences brought on record by the Assessing Officer, in our considered view, one more opportunity of hearing needs to be given to the assessee to substantiate his case. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of First Appellate Authority and the learned CIT(A) is directed to re-consider the issue, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall file relevant
7
ITA.No.331/Hyd./2025
details in support of his case as and when the case is posted for hearing.
8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.07.2025. [RAVISH SOOD]
[MANJUNATHA G]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated 25th July, 2025
VBP
Copy to 1. Late Mohammad Afzaluddin Quraishi, reptd. By Legal
Representative [LR] Mohammad Masihuddin QU,
E-Block, Flat No.101, Aditya Empress Towers, Shaikpet
Nala, Tolikchowki, Golconda Post, HYDERABAD.
PIN – 500 008. TElangana.
The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad – 500 084. Hyderabad 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File.
//By Order//
////