ATUL BANSAL,INDORE vs. ADDITIONA, JOIN, DEPUTY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 14.09.2021 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds as mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 7
Atul Bansal ITA No. 704/Ind/2024 – 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
Atul Bansal ITA No. 704/Ind/2024 – 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.
Having explained thus, Ld. AR went ahead to make submissions qua
the sources of deposits available to assessee. In so far as the first source of
business turnover/receipts having been deposited is concerned, Ld. AR drew
us to Page 33 of Paper-Book where a business licence issued by Municipal
Corporation of Indore to assessee to run a proprietorship concern named
“M/s Bansal Real Estate & Building Material Supplier” is filed. Then, Ld. AR
drew us to Page No. 19 to 21 of Paper-Book to show that the assessee has
declared turnover/gross receipts of Rs. 96,58,540/- with net profit/taxable
business income of Rs. 8,38,880/- u/s 44AD from this very business of
“M/s Bansal Real Estate & Building Material Supplier” in the return of
income filed to Income-tax Department (the net profit/taxable business
income of Rs. 8,38,880/- is included in the total income of Rs. 8,21,960/-
declared return of income). She submitted that out of such turnover/gross
Page 3 of 7
Atul Bansal ITA No. 704/Ind/2024 – 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.
Then, Ld. AR explained the second source of sale of old personal car.
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.
Ld. AR has also filed following Written-Submission and prays for
remanding this case back to the file of AO while acknowledging in Para 2
thereof that the assessee is willing to co-operate fully in the proceedings
before AO:
Page 4 of 7
Atul Bansal ITA No. 704/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18
Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection to the submission and
prayer of assessee/Ld. AR.
Page 5 of 7
Atul Bansal ITA No. 704/Ind/2024 – 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
Atul Bansal ITA No. 704/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 9. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 14/05/2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 14/05/2025
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order E COPYSSEtetehtAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 7 of 7
