Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file her return of income for AY 2016-17. The case was reopened under Section 147 as there was a credit of Rs. 10,52,52,671/- in the assessee's bank account, the source of which was not explained.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and the source of credits was not explained. However, the Assessing Officer was not correct in treating the entire credits as income without considering debit transactions. Fresh evidences were filed by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained bank credits as income is justified without proper investigation, and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to explain the source of credits with fresh evidence.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 250, 148, 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
O R D E R
PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 09.08.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) on the basis of information that there was credit of Rs.10,52,52,671/- in the bank account of the assessee. In the course of assessment, no proper compliance was made by the assessee and source of credits in the bank account was not explained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the entire credit of Rs.10,52,52,671/- in the bank account as unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The assessment was Ahd 2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhavnaben Rameshbhai Patel vs. ITO Page 2 of 4 completed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act on 04.05.2023 at a total income of Rs.10,52,52,671/-.
Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided vide the impugned order and appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The assessee is now in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: -
“1 The order dated 09/08/2024 bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024- 25/1067476185(1) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 2 On facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under section 148 dated 28/07/2022 by the Income Tax Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara is without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law; since same is contrary to the provision of section 151A received with scheme dated 29/03/2022 issued by the CBDT requires notice to be issued by FAO. 3 On facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT Appeal (NFAC), DELHI has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,52,52,671/- in respect of cash deposit without considering the submission made during the course of assessment proceedings and no further investigation is done by the Assessing Officer. 4 The Appellant craves to alter, add, delete, substitute, or modify and other grounds of appeal”
5. Shri Satyaprakash, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without examining the merits of the addition. He explained that no compliance could be made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and for this reason the appeal was dismissed. He, therefore, requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity to explain the deposits in the bank account and the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Ahd 2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhavnaben Rameshbhai Patel vs. ITO Page 3 of 4 6. Per contra, Shri Alpesh Parmar, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee neither made compliance before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as eleven opportunities to the assesses but no compliance was made by the assessee on any of these occasions. The ld. CIT-DR, therefore, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions. The undisputed fact is that the assessee neither complied before the Assessing Officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A) and the source of the credits appearing in the bank account was not explained. We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee which should be paid to the Income Tax Department within 15 days of the receipt of this order. We are also of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was not correct in treating the entire credits in the bank account as income of the assessee without taking into account the debit transactions. The assessee has now filed fresh evidences before us in the form of copy of bank statement and the details of unsecured loans taken and repaid by the assessee which were appearing in the bank transactions. Copy of certain loan confirmations have also been brought on record. These are fresh evidences and were not examined by the lower authorities at any stage. We, therefore, deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of credits appearing in the bank account. The assessee will be free to place the fresh evidences filed before us or any other evidence, before the Assessing Officer, to explain the credits as appearing in the bank account. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and not to seek any unnecessary adjournment.
Ahd 2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhavnaben Rameshbhai Patel vs. ITO Page 4 of 4 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 6th May, 2025.