Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-filer, was found to have high-value financial transactions of Rs. 25,56,900/-. A notice u/s. 148 was issued, and upon assessment, an addition of the same amount was made under section 69A of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that detailed analysis of the bank statement, cash flow, and sale agreements was required, which is not suitable for the current forum. Considering previous AYs where business operations were accepted, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits is justified without a detailed analysis of financial transactions and supporting documents.
Sections Cited
250, 139, 148, 142(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhidated 16.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,70,945/- u/s. 69A of IT Act on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account.
The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal.
The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual is amongst the non-filers of return u/s. 139 of the Act. Thereafter, the revenue was in possession of information from the office of the Director of Income-Tax (CIB), Jaipur that was indulged in high value financial transactions amounting to Rs. 25,56,900/- (Cash deposited in PNB) during the year under consideration, pursuance to this, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee vide dated: 05.03.2015. After several notices u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act, finally the assessee filed his return of income on 23.02.2016 manually, declaring income of Rs. 1,32,625/- and income from other sources at Rs. 3,059/-. The case of the assessee was assessed after making addition of Rs. 25,56,900/- u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee being further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) preferred an appeal before the coordinate bench, where the matter was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter de-novo after appreciating the documents furnished by the assessee in his support.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) again considered the whole issue afresh and a partial relief of Rs. 1,85,955/- was allowed. The assessee again aggrieved with this order of the Ld. CIT(A), preferred the present appeal before us. We have thoroughly considered the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) after the directions of the coordinate bench and submissions of the assessee alongwith the grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee submitted before the AO that the cash deposit of Rs. 25,56,900/- was out of his business receipt, however details of sales and purchase alongwith the nature of the business was not furnished. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee has produced some agreement of sale of agricultural land. But, there was no evidence in the form of jamabandi and khasara gardawri to establish the owner-ship, agricultural operations etc.Although the same were produced before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings before him.
In our considered view the only solution in this matter is to analyse the bank statement of the assessee along with supportings furnished by the assessee. We have gone through the bank statement of the assessee alongwith tentative cash flow statement prepared by the assessee. It is observed that the assessee never retained the money in his bank account, i.e. the amount deposited withdrawn immediately within nest 2-3 days. Alongwith this feature amount of sales consideration as mentioned in the agreement of sale vis-à-vis amount received by the assessee and his brother are not matching, i.e. Rs. 36,01,100/- and 7,60,000/- respectively. These submissions and documents requires a thorough analysis and participation of the assessee before the AO and Tribunal is not the right forum to analyse and go into such minute details to be verified.
It is also observed that the assessee produced his assessment orders for subsequent two A.Y.s, i.e. 2011-12 and 2012-13, wherein the revenue had accepted the business operations of the assessee alongwith nature of the business. In view of the above, the matter is restored to the file of the JAO for de- novo assessment considering the assessment orders for A.Y.s 2011-12 and 2012- 13 alongwith the transaction of land sale by the assessee after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to be co- operative enough in assessment proceedings without seeking any adjournment.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5thday of February 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 05/02/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. आयकर आयु� CIT 3. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file.