Loading judgment…
Facts
During AY 2017-18, the assessee deposited Rs. 19,24,300 in her bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this entire amount as unexplained money under Section 69A and added it to the assessee's total income. The assessee failed to provide the sources for these credits, leading to an ex-parte assessment.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to failure to provide relevant documents. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex-parte by the AO and that the case might not have been adjudicated properly. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the lower authority.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 19,24,300 as unexplained money under Section 69A was justified, given the ex-parte assessment and potential procedural irregularities. Whether the penalty under Section 271AAC and interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were correctly levied.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 271AAC, 234A, 234B, 234C, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI DIESH MOHAN SINHA & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
(निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayshree Viradiya 305, 3rd floor, Vs. ITO ward 3(2)(9), Anavil Sharda Apartment, Chandulal Business Centre, Adajan Sheths street, Saiyedpura, Surat- Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat. 395003. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGIPV9311R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Respondent by : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR) : 06/08/2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) dated 24.01.2025, which in turn arises out of an Assessment order dated 15.11.2019 passed by Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITA 323/SRT/2025 Jayshree Viradiya 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 19,24,300/-on account of alleged cash deposit and other credits in a saving bank account treated as alleged unexplained money u/s.69A.rws u/s 115BBE The Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in Confirming the action of the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty u/s 271AAC of Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in Confirming the action of the Assessing Officer has on facts and in law in charging 234A, 234B, and 234C of the IT Act, 1961.
It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.
5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.
Facts of the case:
During the A.Y 2017-18, appellant had made cash deposits in her bank account maintained at DENA BANK account no 111113023808. During the period of demonetization appellant made deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- in her bank account maintained at DENA BANK. Total amount to be credited in bank account was Rs.19,24,300/- including other credit entries other than deposit made during demonetization made during the year. Due to some abnormal reasons appellant failed to provide sources of above credit entries made in bank account due to this learned AO consider it all amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of Income ~ 2 ~ ITA 323/SRT/2025 Jayshree Viradiya Tax Act 1961. And making addition with same amount. Subject to the above discussion, Total Income of the assessee is assessed u/s 144 of the Act as under: Particulars Amount Income as per return of income NIL Addition: u/s. 69A(As discussed in para16) Rs 19,24,300/- Total Income Rs 19,24,300/- 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Which was dismissed by order dated 24.01.2025 by stating that no evidence of the said ITR V being sent to CPC within specified time.
The assessee is in appeal before this tribunal against the impugned order dated 24.01.2025. 5.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for one opportunity be given to him to explain his case before lower authority. 5.2 On the contrary Ld. DR of the revenue relied on the order of lower authority.
We have heard both the party and perused the material available on record. We note that The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the issued of that the assessee failed to provide relevant documents during appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) further acknowledged that the return filed before him in the No equipment Pvt. Ltd. However, the assessee is a proprietorship concern. We have perused the assessment order of Ld. CIT(A) and paper submitted before us. We note that the return filed by assessee on 31.03.2017 E-filing No. 732170270310317 (placed on record). We further note that the assessment was completed exparte by the Ld. AO. Considering the facts available on record and argument provide by the assessee we are of the view that the case was not adjudicated properly. Therefore, we are of view to set aside the order of the lower authority and matter remit back to the file of Ld. AO.
~ 3 ~ ITA 323/SRT/2025 Jayshree Viradiya 7. In the result, The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.