BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR

Hearing: 25.02.2025Pronounced: 27.02.2025

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, इंदौर �यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.634 & 637/Ind/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bajrang Lal, Assessment Unit, 32, Income Tax Colony, NFAC, Ved Nagar, Delhi Vs. Ujjain Rishi Nagar, Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ACFPL4677B Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 O R D E R

This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated

28.06.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y.2017-18 which is

arising from the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act

dated 15.03.2023 framed by Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18

ITA No.634/Ind/2024

“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notice dated 27-07-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act by the Local Assessing Officer i.e. Ld ITO WD-2(2), Kota even when after 29-03-2022, re-assessment under section 147, 148 and 148A of the Act was required to be conducted through automated allocation and in a faceless manner as per Binding Hon'ble CBDTs Notification dated 29-03-2022 (Notification No. 18/2022) and therefore. proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act in the case of the appellant for Assessment Year 2017-18 on the basis of the said notice is also bad in law.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant even in absence of any information which suggested that income chargeable to tax had escaped from assessment and merely for verification of cash deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant for Assessment Year 2017-18 vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 27-07-2022 i.e. after three years from the end of relevant assessment year even when the correct amount of alleged income chargeable to tax did not exceeded Rs. 50 Lakhs.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant without obtaining proper sanction from competent authority as mandated by the provisions of section 151 of the Act.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the Ld Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him/her 2

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 even when the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings categorically explained the source of cash deposit made by him.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the Ld Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act even when the appellant was not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore, provisions of section 69A of the Act was not applicable.

The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.”

ITA No.637/Ind/2024

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant for Assessment Year 2017-18 merely for verification of source of cash deposited in the bank account of the appellant which tantamount to making roving and fishing inquiries in the garb of reassessment proceedings which is grossly unjustifiable.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income without independent application of mind.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant without obtaining proper sanction as mandated by the provisions of section 151 of the Act.

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the Ld Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act even when the appellant was not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore, provisions of section 69A of the Act was not applicable. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.”

First we take up ITA No.637/Ind/2024. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the

assessment order dated 16.03.2022 deserves to be quashed on the

ground that fresh reassessment proceedings were initiated by

issuance of notice u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27.02.2022 for the

reason that the issuance of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated

31.03.2021 served to the assessee on 1.04.2021 was barred by

limitation. He also referred to the affidavit filed by the assessee

mentioning both these facts.

On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative was fair

enough to accept that since fresh assessment proceedings were

initiated for Assessment Year 2017-18 by issuance of notice u/s

148 of the Act dated 27.02.2022, the previous assessment

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 proceedings carried out by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act

dated 31.03.2021 deserves to be quashed.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed

before us. Admittedly the assessee did not filed its return of income

for Assessment Year 2017-18. Based on the information about the

deposit of cash of Rs.11,00,000/- in the bank account of the

assessee maintained with M/s Baran Kendriya Sahakari Bank

Limited, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 but

served on 1.04.2021. But thereafter in view of the judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

dated 04.05.2022 dealing with the validity of notice issued u/s 148

of the Act between 1.4.2021 and 30.06.2021, Ld.A.O issued fresh

notice u/s 148 of the Act in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra).

Accordingly fresh reassessment proceedings were initiated and

assessment was framed on 15.03.2023 after the issuance of notice

u/s 148 of the Act on 27.07.2022. In the given facts and

circumstances of the case since the fresh proceedings for

Assessment Year 2017-18 have been completed on 15.03.2023 the

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 previous assessment proceedings for the very same assessment

year 2017-18 completed on 16.03.2022 which was carried out by

the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 deserves to

be quashed. Accordingly finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and

the assessment order dated 16.03.2022 is quashed. The legal

ground raised in the appeal No.637/Ind/2024 are allowed. So far

as on merits of the case are concerned the same will be dealt in

other appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18 ITA

No.634/Ind/2024. Accordingly appeal No. 637/Ind/2024 for the

Assessment Year 2017-18 is allowed as per terms indicated above.

Now we take up appeal No.634/Ind/2024.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for not

pressing legal issues raised in Grounds No. 1,2,3,4 & 5 of this

appeal challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act

as well as validity of the assessment proceedings. Accordingly

Ground No. 1 to 5 are dismissed not pressed.

The only surviving issue challenged by the assessee is in

Ground No. 6 & 7 is against the addition of unexplained cash

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 deposit of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the Assessment Officer u/s 69

r.w.s. 115BB of the Act.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the source of alleged

cash deposit is withdrawal made by the assessee during the

financial year 2013-14 from his bank account. The amounts

withdrawn from the bank were utilized for giving advance to Mr.

Heeralal Meena for purchase of land but subsequent to his death

and also the death of his son namely Hansraj Meena the registry of

the immoveable property could not be carried out in favour of the

assessee therefore the advance of Rs.9,00,000/- given by the

assessee on 28.03.2014 was returned back by wife of late Hansraj

Meena. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that cash of

Rs.8,99,000/- which was withdrawn from the bank account in the

year 2013-14 is the major source of the alleged cash deposit and

therefore the same should not be treated as unexplained.

On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative supported

the order of the lower authorities.

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 10. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed

before us. The dispute in the instant case has arisen on account of

the reason that cash of Rs.11,00,000/- was deposited by the

assessee in cash in his bank account. Ld. A.O was not satisfied by

the explanation given by the assessee. On going through the

documents filed before this Tribunal as well as lower authorities I

notice that the assessee is maintaining the bank account with M/s

Baran Kendriya Sahakari Bank Limited for past many years and

during the financial year 2013-14 Rs.8,99,000/- has been

withdrawn. The assessee is claimed to have been engaged in

business of medicines for past many years and also filing the

income tax return and for the year under appeal income of

Rs.1,49,590/- has been declared in the return filed on 25.09.2021.

In support of the documents it is noticed that the assessee gave

advance of Rs.9,00,000/- to Mr. Heeralal Meena at the closure of

financial year 2013-14 for purchase of agriculture land located at

Gram Siswali, Tehsil Mangrol, Dist. Baara, Rajasthan. But prior to

the land being transferred in the name of assessee Mr. Heeralal

Meena expired on 4.12.2014 and his son Mr. Hansraj Meena who

was supposed to execute the registry but unfortunately he also

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 died on 10.7.2015. Due to these reasons the registry could not be

executed. Later on wife of Mr. Heeralal namely Smt. Hema Meema

refunded Rs.9,00,000/- to the assessee during month of April,

2016. All the above facts have been reiterated in the affidavit given

by Smt. Hema Meena as well as the assessee. The facts mentioned

in the affidavit of Smt. Hema Meena stands uncontroverted by the

department as no further enquiry has been carried out. Merely

there is a general observation of the revenue authorities that the

story of the giving advance during the year 2013-14 and receiving it

back during the year 2015-16 is a cooked story but there is no

verification by the revenue authorities of the details furnished by

the assessee.

11.

Under the given facts and circumstances of the case,

considering the affidavit of Smt. Hema Meena duly supported with

the bank statement about the withdrawal of cash from the bank

account by the assessee during the year 2013-14 amounting to

Rs.9,00,000/- along with explaining the source of remaining

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the accumulation of past savings

and income declared by the assessee, I find that the assessee has

ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 successfully explained the source of alleged cash deposit of

Rs.11,00,000/-. No addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BB of the Act is

called for. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the impugned

addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made u/s 69A is deleted. Effective

grounds of appeal raised in Ground No.6 & 7 on merits are allowed.

Ground No.8 is general in nature and needs no adjudication.

12.

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2025.

Sd/-

(MANISH BORAD) Accountant Member

Indore, 27.02.2025 Dev/Sr. PS

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI