Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Vishan Chandra Gupta, filed his return declaring an income of Rs.3,61,210/-. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 for cash deposits of Rs.13,90,000/-. The assessee claimed the deposits were from a settlement amount received after his termination from a bank, which he intended to use for purchasing agricultural land that ultimately fell through. The AO added the cash deposits as undisclosed income due to a perceived gap between withdrawals and deposits.
Held
The Tribunal, while noting that the appeal was heard ex-parte and that the assessee had a delay in filing, condoned the delay due to medical reasons. The Tribunal restored the case to the AO for one more opportunity for the assessee to present his case and evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits were correctly treated as undisclosed income by the AO, considering the assessee's explanation and supporting documents, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present his case.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vishan Chandra Gupta v. Income Tax Officer S/o Salig Ram, Ward 1(1) 56, Lajpat Nagar Bareilly Karamchari Marg Bareilly TAN/PAN:ANHPG7000J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 06 01 2025 Date of pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.03.2023, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 12.07.2012, declaring a total income of Rs.3,61,210/-. The Income Tax Department was in possession of AIR information that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.13,90,000/- in his Saving Bank Account during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notice to the assessee, requiring him to furnish the requisite information with regard to the aforesaid cash deposits. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee filed written submission on 04.10.2018, stating therein that the return filed on 12.07.2012 be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO, thereafter, issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act, requiring the assessee to furnish details relating to the cash deposits of Rs.13,90,000/-. The assessee filed detailed reply on 26.10.2018 along with supporting documents, stating therein that the assessee was a Bank employee since the year 1978 and on 12.11.1993, he was terminated from the service by the Bank, and that against the termination of his service, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and further that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad Judicature had decided the case in his favour, passing an order for reinstating his service with pay, allowances and other benefits attached to the post. It was further submitted before the AO that the Bank had paid him a total sum of Rs.21,75,621/- and had transferred the same in his Bank Account in State Bank of India in two parts, viz. Rs.8,34,327/- and Rs.10,14,558/- through banker cheques and that he had withdrawn the money several times from the Bank, as he was planning to purchase an agriculture land but due to failure of the deal, he had to deposit the amount back in Canara Bank account. The assessee had also filed the copies of order of the Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge (CD)-IV Bareilly, Bank Account Statements with SBI, Canara Bank and also the correspondence made by the Bank with the Hon'ble Court and the assessee before the AO. After considering the reply of the assessee and other documents furnished by the assessee, the AO was of the view that there was a long gap between the withdrawals from State Bank of India Account and deposits in Canara Bank account. The AO, therefore, issued show cause notice to the assessee on 01.11.2018, requiring him to furnish specific reason for such a long gap between the withdrawals and deposits, along with documentary evidence. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the show cause notice issued on 01.11.2018, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.13,90,000/- as the undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
That the appellate order is bad in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law that since, appellant has not furnished any evidence regarding the purchase of agriculture land, so, the same is not admissible.
3. That the Appellant is enclosing the copy of purchase agreement through which it will be clear that the amount so withdrawn was actually for the purpose of purchasing agricultural land.
4. That the Appellant has also submitted the agreement for cancellation of the purchase transaction from which it will be clear that the amount given was refunded and the same was later deposited in our account.
Any other ground as deem fit at the time of hearing of appeal. 5. None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application moved in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 05.06.2023 for condonation of delay, duly supported by Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee was suffering from Dengue and was advised by the Doctor for complete bed rest from 05.05.2023 to 04.06.2023. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. It has been prayed that the delay be kindly condoned.
The Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the delay being condoned.
In view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by Medical Certificate and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.
None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any application for adjournment placed before me. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal.
The ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the file of the AO.
I have heard the Ld. Sr. D.R. and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the Assessee to present his case and produce necessary evidences in support of his case. I also caution the Assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the Assessee.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/01/2025.