ATUL BANSAL,INDORE vs. ADDITIONA, JOIN, DEPUTY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Page 1 of 7 – AY 2017-18 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2017-18 on 28.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,21,960/- which was processed u/s 143(1)(a). Subsequently, the AO received an information from DDIT, Unit-II, Indore indicating that the assessee had purchased a vehicle during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and before purchasing such vehicle, made a cash deposit of Rs. 14,00,000/- in bank a/c on 08.11.2016.

Accordingly, the AO made certain enquiries from assessee but in absence of any response from assessee, the AO ultimately took action u/s 147 through a notice u/s 148 dated 18.03.2020. During proceeding, the assessee filed reply dated 31.03.2021 as acknowledged by AO in Para 4 of assessment- order. In the reply so filed, the assessee claimed that the deposit of Rs. 14,00,000/- was made from two sources, namely (i) sale proceed/receipts of business, and (ii) sale of a personal old car. The AO, however, rejected claim of assessee by assigning the reason that the assessee has not filed any evidence/document. Ultimately, the AO made addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- u/s 69A treating the deposit as unexplained money. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not make compliances of notices issued by CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine, vide Para 5 of impugned order, for the reason of non-prosecution. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

Page 2 of 7 – AY 2017-18 3. Ld. AR for assessee at the outset submitted that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. She submitted that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside.

Page 3 of 7 – AY 2017-18 receipts of business, the assessee made deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- in bank a/c. She submitted that the assessee is having immunity from maintenance of books of accounts since he has declared income under presumptive scheme of section 44AD and that the turnover/gross receipts of business at Rs. 96,58,540/- declared by assessee is also manifold of the deposit of Rs.

10,00,000/-. Therefore, in the situation, the assessee cannot and should not be asked to explain the source of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited in bank a/c by utilizing turnover of business. Without prejudice, Ld. AR submitted, the assessee has still filed evidences of cash received from customers towards sales invoices of business, for the sake of satisfaction of authorities. Such evidences are in the shape of (i) PAN cards of customers, (ii) Aadhar cards of customers, (iii) Affidavits of customers, and (iv) Invoices issued by assessee to customers, filed at Pages 39-51 of Paper-Book.

She submitted that the assessee sold car to Shri Bharat Tiwari and the documents in the shape of (i) R/C of old card owned by assessee, (ii) PAN Card of buyer, (iii) Aadhar card of buyer, and (iv) Affidavit of buyer, are submitted at Pages 35-38 of Paper-Book.

Page 4 of 7 – AY 2017-18

Page 5 of 7 – AY 2017-18 8. We have considered submissions of both sides and perused the case record. We find that during assessment-proceeding, when the AO asked assessee to explain the source of deposit of Rs. 14,00,000/- made in bank a/c, the assessee explained two sources, namely (i) the turnover/business receipts of business, and (ii) sale proceed of a personal car. However, the AO rejected asesssee’s submission for want of evidences. Thereafter, during first-appeal, the assessee could not attend the hearings which led the CIT(A) to dismiss assessee’s appeal in limine without adjudication on merit. Now, the assessee has filed supporting evidences before us as discussed above and requesting to remand this matter to the file of AO for adjudication afresh on merit. The assessee is showing strong willingness to make representation before AO. The Ld. DR for revenue is also fair enough in not objecting to the submission/prayer of assessee. We also find that if the case is restored at the level of AO, there would be no prejudice to revenue instead there would be a proper determination of total income and tax liability in accordance with law. Being so, we agree to the prayer made by Ld. AR to restore this appeal back to the file of AO. The AO shall adjudicate this matter afresh after giving necessary opportunities to assessee and after considering assessee’s all submissions including the evidences filed as above.

In doing so, the AO shall not be influenced by his previous order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to ensure adequate participation before AO failing which the AO shall be entitled to pass order as he thinks fit in accordance with law.

Page 6 of 7 – AY 2017-18 9. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 14/05/2025