Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals challenging the quantum assessment proceedings under section 144 and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2011-12. The CIT(A) had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee argued that cash deposits and withdrawals were not considered due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the matter needed examination at a primary level and decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to pass a fresh order after thoroughly examining the bank account in totality.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment and the additions made by the lower authorities were justified, and whether the penalty imposed was correct.
Sections Cited
144, 271(1)(c), 148, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 1497/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dipikaben Devendrakumar Shah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-303, Ocean Colina, Ward-4(2)(1), Nr. Vardan Tower, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad-13 [PAN : BEYPS 8625 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parin S. Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri S.K. Agal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
These two appeals have been filed by the Assessee—one challenging the quantum assessment proceedings u/s 144, and the other challenging the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Both impugned orders were passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ("CIT(A)"), under Section 250 of the Act, dated 19.06.2024, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “
The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.
The reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and required to be quashed. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 15,10,676/-u/s 69A of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant. & 1497/Ahd /2024 Dipikaben Devendrakumar Shah Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2–
4. Ld. NFAC ought to have consider the fact that FDR of Rs. 9,10,676/- was made from cash deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- and accordingly, total addition would tantamount addition to double addition.
5. Ld. NFAC ought to have estimated certain percentage of profit rather than making addition of entire credit as appellant is doing gruh udyog activity. The Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty of Rs.3,13,330/- u/s 271(1)(c) ignoring submission of the appellant.”
In this case, an ex-parte order has been passed by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) summarily affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Before us, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee has cash deposits as well as cash withdrawals which has not been considered by the Assessing Officer owning to assessee’s non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance would be made about the cash deposits and cash withdrawals before the Assessing Officer. Since the matter needs to be examined at primary level, the matter is being remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass an order de novo after examining the bank account in totality.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.