GANESHBHAI VITHALBHAI CHUNARA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1010/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence before the lower authorities, the additional evidence submitted before the Tribunal appears to support the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against an order of the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144. The AO made an addition of Rs. 42,17,218/- for alleged unexplained cash deposits and other credit entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO, confirmed by CIT(A), was justified, especially considering the new evidence presented before the Tribunal and the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, AR
Hearing: 11.03.2025Pronounced: 02.04.2025

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 17.10.2023, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made be the Assessing Officer by passing an ex-parte order u/s.144 of the Act which is illegal and bad in law hence the same should be cancelled.

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the total income of Rs.42,17,218/- making addition and which comprises of an amount of cash deposited of Rs.13.50,000/- in bank during period 08.09.2016 to 31.12.2016 and excluding the same the cash deposits of Rs.21,03,500/- for the period Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganeshbhai Vithalbhai Chunara vs. ITO Page 2 of 4 01.04.2016 to 31/12/2016 and other credit entries of Rs.7,73,718/- as alleged unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and taxing the same applying the provisions of Section 115BBE of Act.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appel Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.42,17,218/- for the all credit entries in bank account which have been made from explained sources.

3.

As per information available with the Department, it was noticed that during the period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, the assessee made cash deposits (details of which are reflected in paragraph no.3, page no.2 of the Assessment Order) after issuing statutory notice which was not responded by the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed Assessment Order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made addition of Rs.42,17,218/- under Section 69A of the Act and taxed the assessee under Section 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that no proper evidence was filed under Rule 46A, therefore, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Ld. AR requested that at this juncture, the assessee has filed additional evidence before the Tribunal and the same to be admitted and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues on merit.

6.

The adjournment application filed by the Ld. Sr. DR is rejected.

7.

We have heard the Ld. AR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not filed the details before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) but the evidences which are submitted before the Tribunal appears to be supporting the contentions of the assessee as contemplated in the grounds of appeal

before the CIT(A). Since the evidence was not on record, it will be appropriate to adjudicate these additional evidences and hence remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the evidences and after verifying these evidences decide the matter as per Income Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganeshbhai Vithalbhai Chunara vs. ITO Page 3 of 4. Tax Act. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. Appeal of the assessee is thus partly allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 2nd April, 2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →