AMITSINGH VRAJRAJSINGH BHADORIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 261/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that the disputed bank account belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify ownership of bank accounts and reconcile deposits with turnover.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order concerning quantum addition and penalty. The addition was based on cash deposits in a bank account not belonging to the assessee according to the assessee's AR, while another account belonged to the assessee. The AO did not bring evidence on record to prove the disputed bank account belonged to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO based on bank deposits in an account not belonging to the assessee is valid, and if the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on limitation without deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR.BRR KUMARSHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri BP Srivastav, Sr.DR
Pronounced: 04.02.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year:2017-18) Amitsingh Vrajrajsingh Bhadoriya, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 260, Kumbhajis Chawl, Ward-6(1)(1), Opp. Saibaba Society, Ahmedabad. Khodiyarnagar Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad-380016. [PAN No.BKYPB3121N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Respondent by: Shri BP Srivastav, Sr.DR 03.02.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 04.02.2025 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: Delay Condoned

The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order dated 30.01.2023 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 involving quantum addition and levy of penalty.

2.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

(1) Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing appeal on ground of limitation without deciding the case on merits. (2) Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of Rs.4,00,82,154/- made by Ld.AO u/s.69A being amount deposited in bank accounts.

-262/Ahd/2024 Asst.Year 2017-2018 - 2– 3. In this case, an addition of Rs.4,00,82,154/- has been made by the Assessing Officer based on the information received from the Operation insight of the revenue. The addition has been made on the basis of cash deposits in the bank account No.916010042512876 (page no. 6 of the assessment order).

4.

Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had only one bank account i.e No.915020054131377 wherein the total cash deposits were to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- plus. It was submitted that the assessee is in the business of Mattress trading and all these deposits were made out of the sales of Mattresses. The Ld. AR submitted that the bank account No. 916010042512876 which was relied by the revenue does not belong to him and even the assessment order has not brought anything on record to prove that this bank account belong to the assessee. On the other hand, the Ld. AR argued that both accounts could have been belonging to the assessee. We find that the AO has not brought on record the bank account of the assessee as per the information received from internal resources. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions to obtain the statements from the bank as to whether the bank account No.916010042512876 ( not given by the assessee) and No.915020054131377 (given by the assessee) stands in the name of assessee or not and then verify the total cash deposits with the turnover declared by the assessee, examine and reconcile it with the assessee’s bank account and to pass assessment order de novo.

5.

Since the quantum addition stands set-aside to the Assessing Officer for framing of the assessment de novo, the penalty levied on the addition is -262/Ahd/2024 Asst.Year 2017-2018 - 3– hereby deleted. The AO is at liberty to initiate penalty based on the outcome of the assessment order passed in consequence to this order. The assessee shall comply to all the notices issued by the AO from time to time failing which, the AO shall initiate penalty proceedings as per the provisions of the Act.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 04.02.2025

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 04.02.2025 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →