Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed its return for AY 2017-18 declaring an income of Rs. 39,00,700/-. The Assessing Officer made additions totaling Rs. 1,35,80,660/- on various grounds, including unexplained cash, gift, and household expenses. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming most additions.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order on merits, granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in confirming additions without proper consideration of evidence and submissions, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for hearing and submission of details.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 69C, 56, 115BBE, 270A, 271AAC, 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar
ITA No: 1205/AHD/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tosifbhai Tajdin Halani The Dy.CIT, (Individual) Anand Circle, 42-43, Sabina Park, Vs Anand Bhalej Road, Near Jakat Naka, Anand, Gujarat-380001 PAN: AFLPH2445C (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: NO AUTHORITY Revenue Represented: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 20-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 23-01-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Tosifbhai Tajdin Halani vs. DCIT
Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual, filed its Return of Income on 31-03-2018 for the Asst. Year 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.39,00,700/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and after elaborate discussions, the Assessing Officer made the following additions:
Unexplained advances received in cash u/s. 69A 57,55,000/- Unexplained gift received from father-in-law u/s 69A 9,00,000/- Unexplained opening cash balance u/s 69A 10,45,585/- Short Term Capital Gain 7,79,375/- Unexplained household expenditure u/s 69C 12,00,000/- 2.1. Thus the Assessing Officer determined the total income as Rs.1,35,80,660/-.
Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Though the assessee filed written submission however the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not made necessary evidence in claim of the disallowances/additions made, thereby confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and partly allowed the assessee appeal.
Aggrieved against the same, assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.
2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal ignoring submission of the appellant.
3. Ld. NFAC ought to have refer the matter to AO for reverification as AO failed to consider documents and case of appellant is covered by rule 46A(d) of the Income 1962. Tax Rules, A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Tosifbhai Tajdin Halani vs. DCIT
4. Appellant prays that matter may be set aside to AO as he failed to consider evidences various submitted during assessment proceedings.
5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 57,55,000/- u/s 69A of cash receipt on cancellation of banakhat which was substantiated with documentary evidence.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 69A of cash receipt from father in law which is tax exempt as covered by definition of relative u/s 56 of the Income Tax Act.
7. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,45,585/- u/s 69A ignoring fact that same was withdrawn from bank which is evidence from the bank statement submitted during the assessment proceedings.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in not allowing Rs. 5,70,000/- paid to revenue authorities which are incidental to transfer of assets and allowable.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in estimating house hold expenses of Rs. 12,00,000/-u/s 69C purely on guess work ignoring submission made by appellant.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in taxing addition made by invoking special rate as per section 115BBE of the Act.
Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A is unjustified.
Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified. 13 Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that one more opportunity be given to the assessee, so as to file necessary details before the authorities concerned. Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted that it should be the last opportunity to produce the necessary details. Hence the matter be set aside back A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 4 Tosifbhai Tajdin Halani vs. DCIT to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for passing fresh order on merits.
6. Recording the same, the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside with a direction to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass order on merits by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23 -01-2025