MUSLIM LALMOHAMMED SOLANKI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD 6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 433/AHD/2025Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad09 April 2025AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment and first appellate proceedings were concluded ex parte due to lapses by the assessee's representative. The assessee has now provided a coherent explanation that the deposits represent business-related cash collections from sundry debtors and not unaccounted income. The assessee has also submitted a summary of the bank book and expressed willingness to produce detailed ledgers and documentary evidence. Given these developments and the Revenue's lack of objection to a remand, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to examine the explanation, bank records, and books of accounts and pass a fresh assessment order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. As a measure of deterrence for the negligence and lack of diligence by the previous representative, a cost of ₹10,000/- is imposed on the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Muslim Lalmohammed Solanki, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 17.12.2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹13,75,450/- made by the AO under section 69A. This addition was based on cash deposits aggregating ₹13,75,450/- in the assessee's bank account during FY 2010-11, which led to reassessment proceedings under section 147. The AO completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 r.w.s.147 due to the assessee's failure to file a return or provide explanations. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed for non-compliance. A delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the ITAT was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹13,75,450/- made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified, considering the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were out of genuine business receipts. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the cash deposited in the bank account belonged to him and was from business receipts, specifically cash recovery from sundry debtors arising from trading operations. The earlier claim before the CIT(A) that the cash belonged to a relative was an error by the previous representative. The assessee is now ready to produce complete books of accounts and supporting documents before the AO for verification. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the Sr. DR, did not raise any objection to the remand of the matter back to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim and supporting documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, AR
Hearing: 08/04/2025Pronounced: 09/04/2025

PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 17.12.2024 for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹13,75,450/- made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1)(5) [hereinafter referred to as “AO"] under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] vide order dated 20.11.2018 passed under section 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. Condonation of Delay

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before us. In support of the condonation request, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating that the delay was caused due to circumstances beyond his control. The responsibility for filing the appeal was entrusted to the previous authorised representative, R B Rathi & Co., Advocate and Tax Consultant, who failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Upon realizing this lapse, the assessee promptly engaged a new authorised representative, CA Vipul Gohil, on 23.02.2025, who ensured the appeal was filed at the earliest. The affidavit further clarifies that there was no intention to delay the filing and that the delay was neither wilful nor due to negligence but caused due to representative error and miscommunication. It is also stated that the delay has not caused any prejudice to the Revenue, and the assessee acted in good faith and took remedial steps expeditiously.

3.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay.

4.

In view of the reasons stated in the sworn affidavit and considering that the delay is marginal (10 days) and adequately explained, and also taking into account the judicial principle that matters should be decided on merits rather than technicalities, we are satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

5.

Accordingly, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Facts of the Case

6.

The assessee is an individual. A reassessment proceeding was initiated under section 147 of the Act and notice u/s.148 was issued on 26.03.2018 based on information received that cash deposits aggregating Rs.13,75,450/- were made in his Bank of Baroda account during the financial year 2010-11. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to file a return of income or any explanation in response to notices issued under various sections of the Act. Accordingly, the AO completed the reassessment ex parte under section 144 r.w.s.147, and added Rs.13,75,450/- to the assessee's income u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained cash deposit.

7.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the delay in filing appeal was condoned. However, despite multiple hearing notices issued on 20.05.2022, 16.08.2023, 11.01.2024, and 21.10.2024, the assessee failed to file any written submission or supporting evidence. The CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition, holding that the AO had passed a reasoned and speaking order.

8.

The assessee preferred an appeal before us raising following solitary ground: “The Lrd. CIT (A) has erred both in law and in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.13,75,450/- without due consideration and understanding of the circumstance of the case. The Appellant's claim and explained of source of the cash deposit into the bank account are out of genuine transaction has been rejected on account of absence of any evidences and confirmed addition of Rs.13,75,450/- under section 69A of Income Tax Act.”

9.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted a detailed statement of facts along with supporting reconciliation from the assessee's bank book for FY 2010-11. It was clarified that the earlier claim before the CIT(A) that the cash belonged to a relative was erroneous and incorrectly filed by the former representative. It was clarified that the cash deposited in the assessee's bank account belonged to the assessee himself and was out of business receipts, particularly cash recovery from sundry debtors arising from trading operations. It was submitted that the bank transactions were duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by summary of cash book and ledger.

10.

The AR submitted that the assessee is now ready to produce the complete books of accounts, supporting documents, and bank reconciliation before the AO for proper verification.

11.

The Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the remand of the matter back to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim and the supporting documents.

12.

We have heard both parties and carefully perused the records. It is evident that the assessment and the first appellate proceedings were concluded ex parte due to lapses on the part of the assessee's representative. At present, the assessee has furnished a coherent explanation that the deposits represent business-related cash collections from sundry debtors and not unaccounted income. He has also placed on record a summary of the bank book and has expressed willingness to produce detailed ledgers and documentary evidence.

13.

In view of these developments and the fact that the DR has no objection to the remand, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. However, we also note that there has been substantial non-compliance at earlier stages of assessment and appeal proceedings due to negligence and lack of diligence on part of the assessee's authorised representative. Such conduct causes avoidable burden on the judicial and administrative machinery.

14.

Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the explanation, bank records, books of accounts and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the assessee. As a measure of deterrence, a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of the Income Tax Department within 30 days from receipt of this order. Proof of such payment shall be submitted to the AO.

15.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the above directions. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th April, 2025 at Ahmedabad. (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, दिनांक/Dated 09/04/2025आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →