Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file its return of income. During the financial year 2017-18, the assessee made huge cash transactions totaling Rs. 3,97,26,885/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 after the assessee did not respond to a notice under Section 148A.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,17,86,112/- under Section 69A as unexplained money because the assessee could only explain the source of a portion of the total deposits. The assessee argued that all necessary documents were submitted but not properly considered.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer was justified, and whether the assessee was denied an opportunity to present its case and claim deduction under Section 80P.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 69A, 144, 80P(2)(a)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
The revised grounds raised
by the assessee read as under: 1) GROUND No.
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO erred in proceeding with reassessment/assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act without following mandate of law. 2) GROUND No.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, addition of Rs.2,17,86,112/- U/s 69A made by learned AO is bad in law as the order has been passed without considering the submissions.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. As per NMS module of Insight Portal it was noticed that the assessee has made huge cash transactions totaling to Rs.3,97,26,885/- in its bank account maintained during the financial year 2017-18 (Rs.2,16,48,658/- for financial year 2018-19), the details of which are as under:
S. No. Nature of Transaction Amount/Transaction Value (Rs.) 1 Time deposits(other than a time deposit made 19,50,000 through another time deposit) 2 Time deposits(other than a time deposit made 1,54,50,000/- through another time deposit) 3 Cash deposits (including through bearer cheque) 11,50,907/- in current accounts
4 Cash withdrawal(including through bearer 73,55,000/- cheque) in current accounts 5 Cash deposit in one or more account (other than 1,38,20,978/- a current account and time deposit) of a person Total 3,97,26,885/-
The Assessing Officer therefore, issued notice u/s 148A of the Act to the assessee to submit the explanation within seven days as to why a notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.04.2022 along with the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act to the assessee with the approval of the competent authority. Despite number of opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer, there was no proper compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act after accepting the source of deposits only to the tune of Rs.1,05,85,773/- and made addition of Rs.2,17,86,112/- u/s 69A of the Act.
In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not produce copy of Income & Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet and the computation of total income to verify the details of income earned and expenditure incurred by the assessee. He submitted that the issue of deduction u/s 80P has been decided by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by producing the relevant details. He accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.2,17,86,112/- u/s 69A of the Act u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money on the ground that out of total deposit of Rs.3,23,71,885/- the assessee could explain the source of deposit only to the tune of Rs.1,05,85,773/- and the balance amount was not properly explained. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that during the course of assessment proceedings all the documents were submitted which include the audited financial statements, registration certificate, audit report, bank account statements, cash book written in Marathi language for the entire year and the English translated copy of cash book highlighting / correlating to cash deposit transactions in bank account. However, these documents were neither considered properly by the Assessing Officer nor by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is also his submission that the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act has been decided by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details before the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the Assessing Officer on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.2591/PUN/2024 (A.Y. 2019-20)
Revised grounds raised
by the assessee are as under: 1) GROUND No.
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, addition of Rs.98,27,741/- U/s 69A made by learned AO is bad in law as the order has been passed without considering the submissions. 2) GROUND No.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned AO erred in not giving deduction U/s 80P(2)(a)(1) Rs.98,27,741/- which the assessee credit Co Op society is entitled for.
After hearing both sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee in the instant appeal are identical to the grounds raised in . We have already decided the issue and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the same afresh as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Following similar reasonings, the above grounds raised by the assessee are also allowed for statistical purposes.
S.A. Nos.13/PUN/2025 & 14/PUN/2025
Since both the appeals filed by the assessee have been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, therefore, the Stay Applications filed by the assessee become infructuous and accordingly, these are dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and both the SAs filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th April, 2025.