Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: Both these appeals filed by the assessee pertain to Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 against the respective orders of Commissioner of Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"], confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as "AO"] under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, they are disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 2 Facts of the Case
The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of trading in silver and bullion, filed his returns of income for AY 2013-14 declaring Rs. 2,09,730/- and for AY 2014-15 declaring Rs.2,31,350/-. During the assessment proceedings, information was received from the ACIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai, that the assessee had an account with Shri Renuka Mata Multi-State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (SRMUCS) and had made substantial cash deposits during the financial years under consideration. Based on the search and seizure operation under Section 132 conducted in the case of SRMUCS, it was found that the credit society had allowed huge cash deposits and facilitated accommodation entries through falsified documentation and unauthorized transactions. The AO issued a notice under Section 148 on 28.03.2021, requiring the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits, which remained unanswered. Subsequently, multiple notices under Section 142(1) were issued but the assessee did not comply with any of them. The AO, having no response from the assessee, completed the assessment ex- parte under Section 144 read with Section 147, treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A and added Rs. 5,37,70,820/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs.2,36,13,831/- for AY 2014-15. Tax was levied under Section 115BBE of the Act.
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), raising various grounds challenging the validity of reassessment and the addition under Section 69A. However, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply with the notices and did not file additional written submissions despite multiple opportunities given. In the absence of any representation, CIT(A) ITA Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 3 dismissed the appeals ex-parte, confirming the AO's order without adjudicating the matter on merits.
Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) the assessee has raised the following grounds before us: In ITA No. 1281/Ahd/2024
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 in as much as the conditions for re-opening have not been fulfilled and there is no valid assumption of juri iction rendering the order to be legally invalid in total disregard of facts of the assessee.
He has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs.5,37,70,820/- made by the A.O. u/s 69A for the amount credited in his Bank account in an unauthorized way without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of appellant.
He has erred in law and facts in applying provision of section 115BBE to the facts of the assessee without appreciating the facts available on record.
On the facts of the assessee no interest u/s 234A, 234B ought to have been levied.
He has erred in law and facts in relying upon legal decisions mentioned in the appeal order in as much as that the said legal decisions are distinguishable and are submitted to the not applicable to the facts of the assessee.
The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and to modify any ground of appeal. In ITA No. 1282/Ahd/2024
The learned CIT(A) ought to have treated the appeal filed against order u/s. 147 dated 30.03.2022 in as much as that the assessee by mistake mentioned the section 154 in place of section 147 read with section 144 as A.O. amended the order u/s.154 on 16.09.2022 resulting into inadvertent and bona fide mistake by the assessee in mentioning section 154 instead of section 147. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting ground no.1 relating to validity of assessment, ground no.2 for addition u/s.69A of Rs.2,36,13,831 and ground no.3 for computing wrong tax liabilities by way of additional tax on the ground of appeal being for rectification order and not assessment order.
Without prejudice to above grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 in as much as the conditions for re-opening have not been fulfilled and there is no valid assumption of juri iction rendering the order to be legally invalid in total disregard of facts of the assessee.
He has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs.2,36,13,831/- made by the A.O. u/s 69A for the amount credited in his Bank account in an unauthorized way without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of appellant.
He has erred in law and facts in applying provision of section 115BBE to the facts of the assessee without appreciating the facts available on record.
On the facts of the assessee no interest u/s 234A, 234B ought to have been levied. ITA Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 4
He has erred in law and facts in relying upon legal decisions mentioned in the appeal order in as much as that said legal decisions are distinguishable and are submitted to the not applicable to the facts of the assessee.
The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and to modify any ground of appeal.
The learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the persistent non-compliance of the assessee. Despite multiple notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A), the assessee failed to furnish any explanation or supporting documents. Given the circumstances, the DR contended that the matter was never adjudicated on merits at either stage. He, therefore, urged that the matter be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the assessee is granted another opportunity to present its case.
The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the appeals are covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel (ITA No. 690 to 694/Ahd/2023). He contended that the additions made by the AO were unjustified and that the assessee was not afforded an adequate opportunity to explain its position. However, without pressing further on the merits of the case, the AR expressed no objection if the matter is remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
We have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material on record. It is evident that the assessee failed to appear before the AO and the CIT(A), despite being granted multiple opportunities. Consequently, neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has examined the merits of the ITA Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 6 case in detail. In the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration.
The AO shall verify all relevant facts and decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the reassessment proceedings and furnish all necessary details to substantiate its claim.
The learned AR has relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel (supra). However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the AO for proper verification and fresh adjudication.
Further, considering the assessee's repeated non-compliance before the lower authorities, we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- per appeal, payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Department within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
In view of the above discussion, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th March, 2025 at Ahmedabad. (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, दिनांक/Dated 11/03/2025 Tanmay, Sr. PSITA Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 7 आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/