What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the technical argument regarding non-service of notice. On merits, considering the lack of satisfactory explanation and regular income, a lump sum addition of Rs. 20 lakhs was deemed just.

The assessee challenged the treating of cash deposits of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained. The lower appellate order was passed ex parte without dealing with the merits of the issue.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits were unexplained and if the lower appellate order was passed without proper consideration of merits.

Sambhaji Rambhau Bhalekar vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni

For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s order dated 21-12-2021 passed in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037976076(1) involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case law perused.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action treating cash deposits of Rs. 25lakhs on 25-6-2010 as unexplained in the course of assessment dated 21-03-2014 as upheld in lower appellate order passed; ex parte and without dealing with merits of foregoing issue.

Learned counsel invited my attention to the lower appellate discussion holding that the assessee had never been served notice under the faceless scheme. The fact however, remains that lower appellate order under challenge has afforded 16 hearings to this taxpayer. I therefore reject the assessee’s instant technical argument.

ITA 13/PUN/2022 Sambhaji R. Bhalekar A.Y. 2011-12 4. Coming to the merits of the issue of correctness of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs, it emerges that neither the learned lower authorities have considered this taxpayer’s regular source of income as well as cash in hand all along nor there is any satisfactory reply coming from the tax-payer’s side during the course of hearing. Faced with this situation, I conclude that that a lump sum addition of Rs. 20 lakhs only would meet the ends of justice with a rider the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets a relief of Rs. 5.00 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 17th August 2022.

SAMBHAJI RAMBHAU BHALEKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(3), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments