KOPPU VENKATESH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR, but scrutiny proceedings under Section 147 were initiated for A.Y. 2016-17 due to unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1.45 Cr in his bank account. The assessee contended these were redeposits of previously withdrawn amounts, but failed to provide satisfactory explanations. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1.63 Cr as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order, denying the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard despite repeated notices. To ensure principles of natural justice and provide substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and consequently, whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A by the AO was valid.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 142(1), 143(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM“DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No.
I.T.A.No.397/VIZ/2024 Koppu Venkatesh
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066772494(1) dated 16.07.2024 for the A.Y.2016-17 arising out of order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „Act‟) dated 16.05.2023.
Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and the original return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed by the assessee on 29.11.2016, in Form No. ITR-4, declaring total income of Rs. 9,52,180/. The assessee has shown income under the head of "profits and gains from business' and 'Income from other sources'. Scrutiny proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of information of unexplained huge cash deposited by the assessee of Rs. 1,45,24,108/- in Bank account maintained with SBI, Maharanipeta Branch, Visakhapatnam. Notices under section 142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, assessee filed its responses on 17.02.2023, 08.03.2023, 11.04.2023 & 05.05.2023 as mentioned at page no. 2 to 7 in the assessment order. Being not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment by observing that assessee repeatedly withdrawing cash from the bank account maintained with SBI and submitting that cash deposited into his bank accounts are the same amounts which were withdrawn from the bank account of SBI. However, the assessee has failed to explain as to why he was repeatedly withdrawing cash from the bank account maintained with SBI, when he was supposed to again deposit the above amount into his both bank accounts. Ld.AO
Page No. 2
I.T.A.No.397/VIZ/2024 Koppu Venkatesh
observed that assessee failed to furnish any reason or purpose along with documentary evidences for holding the impugned amount of cash withdrawals. Therefore, Ld. AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,72,66,288/- by making an addition of Rs. 1,63,14,108/- as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act.
On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents on his contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal based on the merits available on record.
On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal: -
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,63,14,108 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank deposits in the bank account. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”
Page No. 3
I.T.A.No.397/VIZ/2024 Koppu Venkatesh
At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Ld. AO, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is exparte order and she pleaded to confirm the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, it is observed that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of providing substantial justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh
Page No. 4
I.T.A.No.397/VIZ/2024 Koppu Venkatesh
consideration and decide the case on merits. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07th March, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (के.नरधिम्हाचारी) (एि बालाकृष्णन) (K.NARASIMHA CHARY) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) न्याधयक िदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा िदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.03.2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to :- निर्धाऩरती/ The Assessee 1. : Koppu Venkatesh D.No. 50-56-2 Rajendra Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Income Tax Office Pratyakshakar bhavan MVP Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file 6. //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
Page No. 5
