Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an AOP, did not file its return of income for AY 2017-18. Based on data analytics during "Operation Clean Money", it was found that the assessee deposited Rs. 40,43,330/- in its bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer completed a best judgment assessment.
Held
The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) rejected the adjournment request without considering the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 33,34,200/- without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present evidence, and whether the addition was factually incorrect.
Sections Cited
142(1), 139, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aryavysya Seva Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer Pattana Ward 1 Warangal Warangal PAN:AADAA1704H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri P Vinod, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Smt. Harshita Chouhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17/12/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.20176-18.
The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law apart from being passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 33,34,200/ as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition
Page 1 of 4 without providing sufficient opportunities to the Appellant for bringing in the evidence. 3. The AO further failed to appreciate that out of the three bank accounts mentioned in the assessment order, only one account viz., 0810301000032204 with Lakshmi Vilas bank belongs to the Appellant and the alleged addition of Rs.33,35,200/- is factually incorrect. (Tax Effect: 10,30,567/-) 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP and has not filed its return of income for the impugned A.Y. On the basis of data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under “Operation Clean Money”, the Department came to know that the assessee deposited substantial cash amounting to Rs.40,43,330/- in its bank accounts during the demonetization period (9th Nov.2016 to 30th Dec.2016), but have not filed return of income for the A.Y 2017- 18. Hence, notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued and served on the assessee calling to file return of income. But the assessee failed to furnish the return of income for the A.Y 2017- 18 u/s 139 of the Act on or before 31/03/2018. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under “best judgment assessment” and assessed the total income at Rs.34,66,350/-.
Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) who gave partial relief to the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that though the assessee has filed certain details before the learned CIT (A), but the learned CIT (A) rejected the appeal and passed the appellate order ex-parte. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee prayed for another opportunity before the learned CIT (A) to substantiate its claim by filing the requisite details/evidences.
The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that before the learned CIT (A), the assessee failed to explain the details of cash deposits into the Bank Accounts and such credits were not recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Thus, the learned CIT (A) has rightly rejected the adjournment request of the assessee and disposed the appeal ex-parte and the order of the learned CIT (A) be upheld.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer ex-parte. Before the learned CIT (A), although the assessee filed certain details and sought time for filing further details, but the learned CIT (A) rejected the adjournment request and disposed of the appeal ex-parte. The assessee submitted that, he has collected all evidences which are necessary to adjudicate the issue before the learned CIT (A) and therefore, requested to give one more opportunity to explain its case. We find that, although the learned CIT (A) has disposed of the appeal, but has not considered the issue of cash deposits in light of various evidences filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, to give one more opportunity of being heard, we are of Page 3 of 4 the considered view that, the issue needs to go back to the file of the learned CIT (A). Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT (A) to reconsider the issue afresh after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall file all the requisite details and evidences before the learned CIT (A) as and when the appeal is listed for hearing. We order accordingly.