Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 145 days, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the total income at ₹63,24,490, making additions of ₹53,23,337 under Section 69A and ₹4,46,800 as estimated gross profit. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of ₹20,26,673 but sustaining ₹33,02,664 under Section 69A, and deleting the addition of ₹4,46,800.
Held
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the CIT(A) granted partial relief. The assessee claimed the remaining amount was accounted for but could not be properly demonstrated. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue of the addition of ₹33,02,664 back to the AO for de novo verification.
Key Issues
Whether the sustained addition of ₹33,02,664 under Section 69A as unexplained money was justified, and whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to explain the same.
Sections Cited
69A, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2021-22 Manoj Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Chawal Bazar, Main road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824143. [PAN: ANDPK2914K] vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : August 5, 2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ["CIT(A)"] for the Assessment Year 2021-21.
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 145 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the said delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2021–22 declaring total income of ₹ 5,54,350. The return was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Manoj Kumar Act were issued. Since the assessee failed to furnish complete and satisfactory responses, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act on 13.05.2022. The AO assessed the total income at ₹63,24,490 after making the following additions: 1. ₹53,23,337 under Section 69A of the Act as unexplained money, allegedly deposited in cash. 2. ₹4,46,800, estimated at 12% gross profit on alleged business turnover.
Dissatisfied with the above order the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal. The CIT(A) recorded that out of the total cash deposits, an amount of ₹30,30,266 was duly reflected in the assessee’s books of accounts. Accordingly, the addition of ₹20,26,673 under Section 69A was deleted, but the balance ₹33,02,664 was confirmed as unexplained in the absence of proper explanation. Similarly as regards the addition of ₹4,46,800 towards estimated gross profit as estimated by A.O. , the ld. CIT(A) found no justification and deleted the addition entirely.
Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contesting the sustained addition of ₹33,02,664 under Section 69A. It was submitted that the entire cash deposit, including the amount sustained, was properly recorded in the books of the assessee. Since the ld. CIT(A) has already accepted part of the deposits as explained, and the remaining should also have been accepted on the basis that it is recorded in its books of account.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted the assessee failed to substantiate the source of ₹33,02,664 during the assessment and appellate proceedings.
Manoj Kumar However, if one final opportunity is given, the matter may be remanded to the AO to enable the assessee to submit the necessary evidence.
We have considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record. It is evident that the ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief by deleting the addition of RS. ₹20,26,673, but sustained the balance ₹33,02,664 as unexplained under Section 69A. However, the assessee claims that even the remaining portion was duly accounted for, and this could not be properly demonstrated due to lack of opportunity or incomplete compliance. Given the above, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we consider it appropriate to remand the issue of the addition of ₹33,02,664 back to the file of the AO for de novo verification, with the following directions the assessee shall produce books of accounts, ledger entries, and any other evidence showing that the amount of ₹33,02,664 is duly recorded and explained, the AO shall verify the claim and pass a fresh speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is directed to comply with all notices issued by the AO during remand proceedings without fail. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The issue relating to the addition of ₹33,02,664 under Section 69A is restored to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Kolkata, the 5th August, 2025.