MADAN SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No.1416/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12
Shri Madan Singh
S-11, Bidawat Marg
Ambabari, Jaipur -302 012
Ward -4(4),
Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOSPS 7765 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Rathore, C.A.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02/04/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.
CIT(A) dated 01-10-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal.
‘1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition to income on account of unexplained money u/s 69A amounting to Rs.13,29,000/-.
That the order passed by the AO is bad in law as well as on facts.’’ 13,29,000/- during the year under consideration. As per AST system no return of income had been filed by the appellant for the year under consideration The information was pushed on under NMS (Non-Filer Monitoring System) that the appellant had deposit in cash in Oriental Bank of Commerce of Rs. 13,29,000/-during the year under consideration. Further to verify the issue, after getting necessary approval from the worthy Pr. CIT- II, Jaipur, notice u/s 133(6) was issued to the appellant to furnish the necessary details/ information mentioned therein. However, no compliance had been made by the appellant. Such information was not verifiable as the appellant had not filed reply of NMS letter as well as information called for u/s 13365) of IT Act, 1961
Therefore, believing that income to the tune of Rs. 13,29,000/- had escaped assessment and accordingly, the case was reopened by invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 after recording the reasons for doing so. Notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the appellant on 29/03/2018 and sent through registered post on 29.03.2018. The said notice was returned back in the office with the postal remarks "No such person on address" was placed on record. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the IT. Act had been issued to the appellant on 25/07/2018/for filing of return against u/s 147 before 01/08/2018. The said notice was returned back to this office with the postal remarks "No such person on address" which was placed on record In this regard, a show cause notice u/s 144 along with notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 No. 1856 Dated 16/10/2018 addressed to the appellant had been issued for filing of return of income before 22/10/2018, in response to this notice neither appellant attended the office nor filed written submission
Therefore, the undisclosed cash deposits of Rs. 13,29,000/- was not allowed to the appellant and to add the above in the return of income to the assessee for the AY 2011-12. Thus, the Ld. AO was left with no other alternative but SHRI MADAN SINGH VS ITO,WARD 4 (4), JAIPUR to treat as cash deposited by the appellant as unexplained money u/s 60A of the IT Act, 1901 and be added to the total income of the appellant
1.3. The Submission of the appellant, Assessment Order, Facts of the Case and law in this regard is considered. As per the submission, the appellant had submitted that he is an agriculturist and has no other income other than agriculture. During the year, return was filed showing total income at Rs. 54 and agriculture income at Rs. 4,00,000/- The appellant has pleaded that he has raised objections with regard to the issue of notice u/s 148. He also submitted that the objections were not disposed off and hence, the assessment was illegal and bad in law. He placed on two decisions GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. Vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) and M/s K.C. Mercantile Ltd. Vs. DCIT DBIT Appeal No. 292/2016 (Raj) (HC). As per information received from ITO, Ward 4(4), Jaipur the objections raised by the appellant were disposed off vide letter dated 16.10.2018 vide F. No. ITO/WVd-4(4)/JPR/2018-19/1856. Hence, the plea of the appellant that the objections have not been disposed off and therefore the assessment framed is illegal is not acceptable
1.4. The appellant has pleaded that he had filed return in response to 148 notice which was received by CPC, Bengaluru on 03.10.2018. The Ld. AO vide his letter disposing off the objections raised u/s 148 has clearly noted that as per the AST System as on 16.10.2018 no return of income was filed by the appellant. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2018. And this notice returned back to the office with the remarks "no such person on address. The appellant filed the return of income on 03.10.2018 which is much later than the notice issued u/s 148, hence the return filed by the appellant was invalid. Thus, the plea of the appellant that 143(2) notice was to be issued by the Ld. AO in the prescribed time limit is not acceptable. As the facts of the case are completely different from those from the cases quoted by the appellant hence, they are held to be not applicable in appellant's case.
1.5. The next plea of the appellant is that entries Rs. 4,14,000/- on 04.08.2010 and Rs. 2,50,500/- on 14.10.2010 have been repeated. The same information was uploaded by Shri Vinod Kumar, on 10.01.2012 and also by Shri Nimat Ullah on 12.06.2012. The appellant is of the view is that the information can be verified from the ITS report. The submission of the appellant is considered and it is seen that only one set of transactions that is Rs. 4,14,000/- on 05.08.2010 and Rs. 2,50,500/- on 15.12.2010. From the AIS Report, it is clear that the transactions are on different dates i.e. Rs. 4,14,000/- on 04.08.2010, Rs. 2,50,500/- on 14.12.2010, Rs. 4,14,000/- on 08.02.2011 and Rs. 2,50,500/- on 04.10.2011. Since it is not clear whether the credit has been made in some other bank, hence the Ld. AO is directed to verify whether the same entry has been repeated twice, and in case the Ld. AO finds so then the necessary relief should be given to the appellant. But as the above income should have been offered in the return of income which the appellant has failed to declare in his return of income.
1.6. The appellant has pleaded that the appellant is an agriculturist and, in this regard, he has submitted the Jamabandi, in which it is seen that he is labelled as the farmer for various Khasara numbers. The appellant has pleaded that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 6,64,500/- out of the current year's agriculture income. In this regard, the appellant has also submitted rough cashbook. The submission of the appellant is considered and it is seen that though the appellant has made certain cashbook but since it is not corroborated with further supporting evidence such as bills and vouchers etc. hence, the plea of the appellant that Rs. 6,64,500/- deposited in the Bank Account is out of the current year's income is not acceptable.
1.7. In view of the detailed discussion of facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Ld. AO is confirmed, subject to the verification that there is no duplicate entry in the ITS details/ AIS Report, which is to be verified by the Ld. AO. In case the Ld. AO comes to the conclusion that it is duplicate entry then necessary relief of deleting the duplicate entry may be given to the appellant. Thus this ground is partly allowed.’’
2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the lower authorities are not justified in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs.13.29,000/- for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the detailed written submission praying therein that the assessee had deposited only Rs.6,64,500/- in the bank account out of the current years agriculture income of Rs.4,00,000/- not disputed by the AO and out of available cash in hand and earlier years income as per the cash flow statement and as such the addition so made by the AO needs to SHRI MADAN SINGH VS ITO,WARD 4 (4), JAIPUR be deleted. The submissions as advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- ‘’SUBMISSION
That the appeal is filed before your honour and the only ground of appeal is asunder:
Theld.AOerredintreatingthecashdepositedinbankaccountasunexplainedandadded
13,29,000.00 u/s 69A, of Income tax act 1961. Facts
That the facts of the case are asunder:
1. That the petitioner is assessed to income tax with ITO Ward 4(4) Jaipur. The assesse is an agriculturist having no other income other than Agriculture income as such no ITR was filed as the assesse was not having any Taxable
Income.
2. That the assesse is owning 6.1990 Hector Agriculture Land in Ganganagar Dist.
Rajasthan, which is a fertile canal irrigated area.
3. Noticeu/s148oftheI.T.Actwasissuedon25.07.2018. 4. Assesseefiledreturninresponsetonoticeu/s148on27.09.2018.ItwasreceivedatCPC
Bangaloreon3.10.2018. 5. The return was filed showing Total income Rs. 54 only (being interest on saving bank) and Agriculture Income amounting to Rs. 4,00,000.00. 6. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147/148/144 of I.T. Act 1961, and added a sum of Rs. 13,29,000/- u/s 69Aof Income Tax Act 1961 and computed the income as under:
Particulars
AmountRs.
Totalincomedeclaredbyassesse
NIL
Add:Additionmadeona/cofUnexplainedmoneyu/s69A
13,29,000.00
TotalIncome
13,29,000.00
7. Aggrieved against the order passed by the AO assesse filed appeal before the CIT Appeals NFAC .
8. CIT (A) NFAC passed the order and observed as under:
6.1.6. The appellant has pleaded that the appellant is an agriculturist and, in this regard, he has submitted the Jamabandi, in which it is seen that he is labelled as the farmer for various
Khasara numbers. The appellant has pleaded that he had deposited an amount of Rs.
6,64,500/- out of the current year’s agriculture income. In this regard, the appellant has also submitted rough cashbook. The submission of the appellant is considered and it is seen
SHRI MADAN SINGH VS ITO,WARD 4 (4), JAIPUR that though the appellant has made certain cashbook but since it is not corroborated with further supporting evidence such as bills and vouchers etc. hence, the plea of the appellant that Rs. 6,64,500/- deposited in the Bank Account is out of the current year’s income is not acceptable.
6.1.7. In view of the detailed discussion of facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Ld. AO is confirmed ,subject to the verification that there is no duplicate entry in the ITS details/ AIS Report, which is to be verified by the Ld. AO. In case the Ld. AO comes to the conclusion that it is duplicate entry then necessary relief of deleting the duplicate entry may be given to the appellant. Thus, this ground is partly allowed.
Aggrieved against the order of CIT (A) NFAC the assesse is in Appeal before your goodself.
ThatwehavetosubmitasunderbeforeyourHonours’
1. That the petitioner is assessed to income tax with ITO Ward 4(4) Jaipur. The assesse is an agriculturist having no other income other than Agriculture income as such no ITR was filed as the assesse was not having any Taxable
Income.
2. Notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was issued on 25.07.2018. Assessee filed return in response to notice u/s 148 on 27.09.2018. Which was received at CPC Banglore on 3.10.2018. 3. The return was filed showing Total income Rs. 54 only (being interest on saving bank) and Agriculture Income amounting to Rs. 4,00,000.00. 4. ThatReasonsforreopeningarereproducedasunder:
“As per AST System (AIR Report), it has been found that the above mentioned person did not file return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. Later on, it was noticed that the assessee has deposited cash in Oriental Bank of Commerce of Rs. 13,29,000/-.
In absence of the return of income, it is noticed that the cash deposited in Oriental Bank of Commerce could not be verified.
Looking to the facts mentioned above, I have reasons to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 13,29,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147oftheIT
Act,1961.Therefore,itis afitcaseto issuenoticeu/s148 oftheITAct,1961.”
5. The deposit was made in KCC A/c (Kisan Credit Card)Scheme A/c as the assesse is an agriculturist and the main income of the assesse is agriculture only.
OF COMMERCE B/O
SRIVIJAINAGAR,
SRIGANGANAGAR
38,DHANMANDI,DHANMANDIROAD,VIJAINAGAR
P.O.SRIVIJAIN
AGAR-335704
RAJASTHAN PHONE
NO. ; 01498-230411
BORROWER'SNAMEADDR
ESS
ACCOUNTNO.
PRESENTSANCTIONLIMIT
DRAWINGPOWER
PRESENT RATE OF INTT.
BAL. AS ON 30.05.17
STATEMENTOFACCOUNTFROM
MADAN SINGH S/O RAGHUNATH
SINGH1MLD
SBNRSRIVIJAINAGA
RRAJASTHAN-
335704
RS.14,60,000.00
RS.0.00
7.00%p.a.
RS.0.00
01.04.2008TO30.05.2017
Trans.Date chequeno.
particulars debit credit outstanding
10.04.2008
223030
CashWithdrawal
40000
390167
02.05.2008
Tr.
390000
167
07.05.2008
NAIS
2301
2468
13.06.2008
SBA/c
140000
142468
30.06.2008
Intt.W.e.f.14.01.08-30.06.08
7683
150151
15.07.2008
NAIS
2301
147850
24.07.2008
223032
CashWithdrawal
50000
197850
26.07.2008
PassBookCharges
112.36
198962.36
22.08.2008
223033
CashWithdrawal
50000
247962.36
23.09.2008
223034
CashWithdrawal
25000
272962.36
26.10.2008
223035
CashWithdrawal
20000
292962.36
07.11.2008
223036
CashWithdrawal
80000
372962.36
07.11.2008
TaxonINR80000on07.01.08
80
373042.36
15.11.2008
cashdeposit
100000
273042.36
31.12.2008
intt.Wef01.07.08-30.06.09
16437
289479.36
05.01.2009
subv
3588
285891.36
31.01.2009
AICI
2533
288424.36
31.01.2009
cashdeposit
290000
1575.64
31.01.2009
Intt.Wef01.01.09-31.01.09
2901
1325.36
02.02.2009
223037
intt.Wef01.02.09-31.12.09
14419
3016544.36
03.07.2009
SUBMarch
6327
310217.36
30.07.2009
cashdeposit
310000
217.36
30.07.2009
cashhandlingcharges
47
264.36
01.08.2009
223038
CashWithdrawal
300000
300264.36
21.08.2009
subjune
3328
296936.36
01.10.2009
223039
CashWithdrawal
100000
396936.36
26.12.2009
cashdeposit
396000
936.36
31.12.2009
intt.Wef01.07.09-31.12.09
19324
20260.36
01.01.2010
subv09
2197
18063.36
08.01.2010
IC
794
18857.36
20.01.2010
223040
CashWithdrawal
380000
398857.36
29.01.2010
AICI
1411
400268.36
28.06.2010
intt.Wef01.01.10-30.06.10
20539
420807.36
29.06.2010
SUBVmarch10
5810
414997.36
04.08.2010
cashdeposit
414000
997.36
05.08.2010
cashhandlingcharges
27
1024.36
06.08.2010
223041
CashWithdrawal
398000
399024.36
20.08.2010
cashdeposit
175000
224024.36
20.08.2010
cashhandlingcharges
20
224044.36
23.09.2010
SUBPQ
1496
222548.36
23.09.2010
SUBPSA
1870
220678.36
23.09.2010
SUBADD
1208
219470.36
18.10.2010
223043
CashWithdrawal
180000
399470.36
19.10.2010
IChalfyear
397
399867.36
26.10.2010
cashdeposit
180000
219867.36
27.10.2010
cashhandlingcharges
9
219876.36
27.10.2010
223044
CashWithdrawal
15000
234876.36
14.12.2010
intt.Wef01.07.10-14.12.10
15449
250325.36
14.12.2010
8. ThattheAISreportoftheassesseissubmittedasunder:
INCOME TAX
DEPARTMENTINDIVIDUALTRANSACTIONSTAT
EMENT
FINANCIALYEAR2010-11
PAN:AOOSPS7765Q
NAMEASPERAIS:MADANSINGH
SUMMARY
COUNT
AMOUNT
AIR
0
0
CIB
4
1329000
26AS
0
0
OLTAS
0
0
NOTE:ForPennystocktradedataonly25transactionsarebeingdisplayedinPDFreport.Toviewallthetransactionsgenerateexcelreport.CIB compulsory code transactions
Transaction code : 410
DepositincashaggregatingRs.2,00,000ormorewithabankingcompanyduringanyondayTAN of Filer:
DELO00080D
FilerName:DPKAKKAR
S.N.Name&Add.
Trans.Amt.Trans,Dt.Jt.TxnPartyDepo.A/cNo.Trans.RemarksUploadDetails
1
Madan Singh
414000
04.08.10
1
6.6511E+12
Uploaded byVinod kr. On S/o Raghunath
10 Jan 12 New Delhi
1BLD@@@@@
335704
2
Madan Singh
250500
14.12.10
1
6.6511E+12
Uploaded byVinod kr. On S/o Raghunath
10 Jan 12New Delhi
1BLD@@@@@
335704
Transaction code : 410
Deposit in cash aggregating Rs. 2,00,000 or more with a banking company during any on day
TANofFiler:JDHO00867GFilerName:ORIENTALBANKOFCOMMERCE
S.N.Name&Add.
Trans.Amt.Trans,Dt.Jt.TxnPartyDepo.A/cNo.Trans.Remarks
UploadDetails
1
Madan Singh
414000
08.02.11
1
6.6511E+12Old dhanmandi
Uploaded byNimatUllah
S/o Raghunath
Sriganganagar quareshee on 12 May,12
1BLD@@@@@
ITO CIB Jodhpur ,
335704
DIT(I&C)Jaipur
2
Madan Singh
250500
04.10.11
1
6.6511E+12Old dhanmandi
Uploaded byNimatUllah
S/o Raghunath
Sriganganagar quareshee on12 May,12,
1BLD@@@@@
ITO CIB Jodhpur
335704
DIT(I&C)Jaipur
The explanation of the entries is asunder:
4,14,000/-
Depositedoutofearliercashwithdrawals/agricultureIncome
2
14.12.2010
2,50,500/-
Depositedoutofearliercashwithdrawals/agricultureIncome
3
08.02.2011
4,14,000/-
In the AST system (ITS Report) the date is wrongly mentioned.
No such transaction.(DUPLICATE ENTRY)
4
04.10.2010
2,50,500/-
IntheASTsystem(ITSReport)thedateiswronglymentioned.
Nosuchtransaction.(DUPLICATEENTRY)
The basis of addition by the AO was ITS Report. The assesse confirms the cash deposit of Rs. 4,14,000/- on 04.08.2010 and 2,50,000/- on 14.12.2010. The entries on 08.02.2011
amounting to Rs. 4,14,000/- and on 04.10.2011 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- is wrongly mentioned. There is no such transaction. The same fact can also be verified from the bank account of the assesse where only two entries dated 4.8.10 and 14.12.10 are available in bank account. As such only cash amounting the Rs, 6,64,500/-
(4,14,000+2,50,500)was deposited in bank on the mentioned dates.
Assessee is an Agriculturist andthe above account is the only main bank account.
Thesourcesofthecashdepositisoutoftheavailablecashbalancewiththeassesse.Thecashflow statement is produced as under MadanSingh CashBook AY2009-2010 Dr. Cr. Date Particulars Amount Date Particulars Amount 01/04/2008 ToOpeningBalance 0 30/04/2008 ByDrawing 10000 10/04/2008 To Bank 40000 30/05/2008 ByDrawing 10000 30/05/2008 ToAgricultureIncome 100000 30/06/2008 ByDrawing 10000 24/07/2008 ToBank 50000 30/07/2008 ByDrawing 10000 22/08/2008 ToBank 50000 30/08/2008 ByDrawing 10000 23/09/2008 ToBank 25000 30/09/2008 ByDrawing 10000 26/10/2008 ToBank 20000 30/10/2008 ByDrawing 10000 07/11/2008 ToBank 80000 15/11/2008 ByBank 100000 30/11/2008 ToAgricultureIncome 100000 30/11/2008 ByDrawing 10000 02/02/2009 To Bank 300000 30/12/2008 ByDrawing 10000
31/01/2009
ByBank
290000
31/01/2009
28/02/2009
ByDrawing
10000
31/03/2009
ByDrawing
10000
31/03/2009
ByDrawing
176000
31/03/2009
ByClosingBalance
79000
765000
765000
MadanSingh
CashBook
AY2010-2011
Dr.
Cr.
Date
Particulars
Amount
Date
Particulars
Amount
01/04/2009
ToOpeningBalance
79000
30/04/2009
ByDrawing
12000
30/05/2009
ToAgricultureIncome
150000
30/05/2009
ByDrawing
12000
01/08/2009
ToBank
300000
30/06/2009
ByDrawing
12000
01/10/2009
ToBank
100000
30/07/2009
ByDrawing
12000
30/11/2009
ToAgricultureIncome
125000
30/07/2009
ByBank
310000
20/01/2010
ToBank
380000
30/08/2009
ByDrawing
12000
30/09/2009
ByDrawing
12000
30/10/2009
ByDrawing
12000
30/11/2009
ByDrawing
12000
26/12/2009
ByBank
396000
30/12/2009
ByDrawing
12000
30/01/2010
ByDrawing
12000
28/02/2010
ByDrawing
12000
31/03/2010
ByDrawing
12000
31/03/2010
ByClosingBalance
332000
1134000
1134000
MadanSingh
CashBook
AY2011-2012
Dr.
Cr.
Date
Particulars
Amount
Date
Particulars
Amount
01/04/2010
ToOpeningBalance
332000
30/04/2010
ByDrawing
12000
30/05/2010
ToAgricultureIncome
250000
30/05/2010
ByDrawing
10000
04/08/2010
ToBank
398000
30/06/2010
ByDrawing
10000
20/08/2010
ToBank
180000
30/07/2010
ByDrawing
10000
26/10/2010
ToBank
15000
06/08/2010
ByBank
414000
30/11/2010
ToAgricultureIncome
150000
30/08/2010
ByDrawing
10000
14/12/2010
ToBank
100000
30/09/2010
ByDrawing
10000
18/10/2010
ByBank
175000
27/10/2010
30/10/2010
ByDrawing
10000
30/11/2010
ByDrawing
10000
30/12/2010
ByDrawing
10000
10/01/2011
ByBank
250500
31/01/2011
ByDrawing
10000
28/02/2011
ByDrawing
10000
31/03/2011
ByDrawing
10000
31/03/2011
BYClosingBalance
283500
Total
1425000
Total
1425000
The AO while passing the order has not disputed the agriculture income amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- While calculating the tax he has done as under:
GrossTotalIncome
13,29,054/-
AssessedIncome
13,29,050/-
AgricultureIncome
4,00,000/-
AggregateIncome
17,29,050/-
Finally it is submitted that the assesse has deposited only 664500 in the bank account out of the current years agriculture income of Rs. 4,00,000/- not disputed by the AO and out of available cash in hand and earlieryears incomeasper the cash flow statement, assuch the additionsso made by theld. A.O.needs to be deleted and oblige.’’
To support his arguments, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following documents.
S.N. Particulars
Page No.
1. Written submissions
1-7
2. CIT (A), NFAC Order
8-13
3. Order of ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur
14-18
4. Submission before CIT(A), NFAC
19-28
5. Copy of Jamabandi
29
6. Copy of Bank account
30
9. Copy of ITR AY 2011-12
33
3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the as per ITS information generated from system, it was noticed by the Department that the assessee had deposited cash in Oriental Bank of Commerce of Rs.13,29,000/- during the year under consideration. As per AST system , no return of income had been filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. The notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the assessee to furnish necessary details / information mentioned therein but no compliance was made by the assessee and thus such information was not verifiable being not filed the reply by the assessee of NMS letter as well as information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act. The notice was sent to the assessee through Regd. Post on 29-03-2018 but it was returned back in the office of the Department by the postal authority with postal remarks ‘’No such person on address.’’. Conclusively, the notices sent by the Department returned unserved from the available on record of address of the assessee with the remarks by the postal authority that ‘’No such person address’’. The show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act was issued to assessee. However, neither asssessee attended the office of the Department nor filed written submission. In such a situation, the AO made an addition of Rs.13,29,000/- in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’Therefore the undisclosed cash deposits of Rs. 13,29,000/- is not allowed to the assessee and to add the above in the return of income to the assessee for the AY. 2011-12. Thus, I had left with no other alternative but to complete the case on a total Bank cash deposit made by the assessee Income of Rs. 13,29,000/- treated as unexplained cash deposited and in bank in the hands of the assessee. As the assessee had cash deposited amounting to Rs 13,29,000/-and in absence of the explanation of the assessee, it is not in explainable nature, thus, the cash so deposited by the assessee is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and be added to the total income of the assessee. For this act, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated. Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for this purpose is issued separately. Hence I treat this amount of Rs. 13,29,000/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and an added to the total income tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the LT Act, 1961 for concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated separately.
In first appeal before ld. CIT(A), NFAC, it was noticed that the order of the ld.CIT(A) was ex-parte but based on the documents made available by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A), he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee with following direction to the AO.
‘’6.1.7. In view of the detailed discussion of facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Ld. AO is confirmed, subject to the verification that there is no duplicate entry in the ITS details/ AIS Report, which is to be verified by the Ld. AO. In case the Ld. AO comes to the conclusion that it is duplicate entry then necessary relief of deleting the duplicate entry may be given to the appellant. Thus this ground is partly allowed.’’
From the entire conspectus of the case, it is noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
2.5
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/04/2025. ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½
¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½
(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22/04/2025
*Mishra
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Madan Singh, Jaipur.
2izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-4(4), Jaipur.
3vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत.
5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 1416/JPR/2024}
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत