Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC BENCH
Before: Shri Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 18-06- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “The Appellant prefers an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT (A)") u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
1. The order passed by the Learned AO is bad in law. The addition made is incorrect and unjustified and considering the same Penalty Leviable is not justifiable.
2. The order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, confirms the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made a total addition of 039,73,620/- on account of cash deposits and other credit entries in the Appellant's bank account, treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, on the grounds that the transactions were non-genuine and unverifiable.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing of this appeal.”
The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 31-03-2018 declaring total income of Rs. 4,61,790/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny to examine specific issue i.e. larger value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared returned income and high value receipt of cash shown from third parties in response to data. The notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was duly issued to the assessee on 13-08-2018 and the subsequent statutory notices u/s. 142(1) were also issued. Despite giving several notices sufficient evidence was not filed before the Assessing Officer and therefore the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 39,73,620/- as unexplained money as per provisions of section 69A and also disallowance of Rs. 1,77,989/- in respect of deduction u/s. 24B of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. A.R. submitted that as regards addition u/s. 69A of the Act despite filing the additional evidences, the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the same, therefore, the ld. A.R.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that despite mentioning in para B at page no. 22 of the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee has filed additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A, the same was not taken on record and without verification of the details, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in respect of addition u/s. 69A. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on this issue on the basis of verification of the evidences filed under Rule 46A. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24-12-2025