Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case for AY 2017-18 was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits. The Assessing Officer completed a best judgment assessment under Section 144, making an addition of Rs. 21,99,406/- by applying a 1% net profit rate on undisclosed turnover. The assessee failed to furnish necessary details before the lower authorities, leading to the impugned order.
Held
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This is to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish all requisite details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for proper opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided a reasonable opportunity to present details before the lower authorities, and consequently, the validity of the best judgment assessment completed ex parte.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vicky Jaikishan Bansal, Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Pune. D24, Indraprastha Housing Society, Dehu Road, Pune- 412201. PAN : AMQPB4511P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue by : Shri Aviyogi Amadkar Date of hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 24.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER MANISH BORAD, AM:
This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru [Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 10.07.2024 which is arising out of the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 framed on 30.12.2019 by the ITO, Ward-9(1), Pune.
Apart from various grounds, one ground raised by the assessee is that before he could make necessary compliance before Ld. CIT(A) and could file details, the impugned order was passed.
3. A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that various details were called for by Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee failed to produce any credible documentary evidence to substantiate that the impugned additions are uncalled for.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and the return of income for assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 12.12.2017 declaring income of Rs.4,06,800/-. The case selected for scrutiny for larger cash deposit and thereafter Ld. Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment by making addition of Rs.21,99,406/- by applying 1% rate of net profit on 50% of the undisclosed turnover allegedly on account of money transfer business. Though the assessee failed to succeed before Ld. CIT(A), we considering the facts of the case and also observing the observation of Ld. Assessing Officer about the undisclosed turnover and then application of net profit rate on 50% of the undisclosed turnover and that the assessee having failed to furnish relevant details before both the lower authorities deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer for de novo assessment which is to be carried out after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite