RAJNIKANT VITHALDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) NOW WARD 3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1084/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits as arising from sales of milk and milk products from his Amul Parlour. The Assessing Officer had not provided any basis for rejecting this explanation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, running an Amul Parlour, deposited a large sum of cash in his bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 27,37,800/- to the assessee's income as unexplained cash, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period were unexplained income. Whether the Assessing Officer provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 22.01.2025

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajnikant Vithaldas Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajninat Vithaldas Patel, Ward-3(2)(4), ADC Bank, Katosan Road, Ahmedabad Sunvala Dettroj Rampura, Now Ward-3(2)(1) Ahmedabad-382145 [PAN No.DDTPP4321Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR 18.12.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2025 O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Gurugram vide order dated 27.03.2024 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) is bad and erroneous in law and/or on facts.

2. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in misinterpreting the various facts and documentary evidences and disregarding the various submission made and documentary evidences produced during the course of the assessment Proceedings.

3. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 27,37,800/- as income of the appellant u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Rajnikant Vithaldas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– Act. It is submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case it is totally illegal, incorrect, unjustified and the same be deleted.

4.

The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has violated of principles of natural justice as the order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse.

5. The learned NFAC erred in applying the provisions of section 115BBe to the transaction. It is submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case it is totally illegal, incorrect, unjustified and the same be deleted.

6. The Order passed by the learned NFAC is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now.

7. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual and engaged in the business of retail trading in milk and milk products from running “Amul Parlour” and also earning “income from other sources”. As per details available on record, Assessing Officer observed that assessee had deposited huge cash during the impugned assessment year in his bank account. The assessee filed reply dated 01.10.2019 giving explanation with respect to cash deposited in his bank account held by the assessee with Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and added a sum of Rs. 27,37,800/- as unplanned cash deposited during demonetization period and added the same to the total income of the assessee.

4. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, with the following observations:

“It is pertinent to state that to decide this appeal in timely manner several notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant as noted above. Hence, in view of the aforesaid non-compliance of the instant appeal on the part of the Rajnikant Vithaldas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– appellant, the instant appeal adjudicated and disposed of, as under, ex-parte, primarily on the basis documentation available on record. Further, it is settled law that where the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the addition back into the income of assessee as held in Kale Khan Moharnmad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). This onus on the tax payer has neither been discharged at the assessment stage nor at the appellate stage. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the addition made by the Ld. AO. In this view of the matter, addition of Rs. 27,37,800/- is confirmed. Consequently, the grounds of the appellant are dismissed.”

5.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A).

6.

On going through the case records, we observe that the assessee is a vendor and running a milk booth “Amul Parlour” and is engaged in trading of mild and milk products. On going through the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee, it is observed that it had made total sale of Rs. 9,40,80,047/- for the impugned year under consideration (Page 2 of the Paper Book). Further, we observe that the accounts of the assessee have also been duly audited for the impugned year under consideration. Further, on perusal of details provided by the assessee, it is observed that the assessee had made sale of “milk” amounting to Rs. 9,45,45,464/- and “paneer” (milk product) amounting to Rs. 2,34,583/- during the year under consideration. Out of total sales of Rs. 9,47,80,047/- made by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 4,13,36,147/- during this year out of such sales. Further, during the demonetization period, the assessee had made cash deposits amounting only to Rs. 76,20,300/-. On going through the case records, we are of the considered view that the assessee has been able to explain the source of cash deposited by him, during demonetization period as arising out of sale of milk and paneer from his “Amul Parlour”. Further, on perusal of the assessment order, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has not given any basis or reasoning for rejecting the explanation submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 22/01/2025

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 22/01/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →