Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 33,03,600/- in his bank account during the demonetization period without filing a return of income. The Assessing Officer, after issuing notices under Section 142(1) which were not responded to, made a best judgment assessment and added Rs. 33,56,254/- under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee's claim that the amount was proceeds from the sale of land was not accepted by the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed with a delay of 12 days and condoned the same. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed additional documents and argued for a fresh adjudication. It was felt that remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication would meet the ends of justice.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 33,56,254/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was justified given the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds.
Sections Cited
142(1), 69A, 250, Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC BENCH” PATNA
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal is delayed by 11 days for which the assessee has filed a petition for condoning the said delay as under: “1. Rahul Kumar has filed the appeal against the above-mentioned order on 23rd February 2024. 2 The said order was received by the appellant on 13 December, 2023 through email. 3. The time period for filing the said appeal is 60 days ie by 11th Februray 2024. 4. The appellant is from humble background. He currently resides in Pune which has hindered the procurement of additional documents for filing the appeal.
Rahul Kumar 5. Besides the challan for payment of appeal fee of Rs. 10000/, paid on 10th February 2024, was not generated. The appellant has raised the matter for grievance redressal on the e filing site of Income Tax Department but still the matter has not been resolved 6. This has resulted in precious time getting wasted and in spite of best effort, the appeal could not be filed within prescribed 60 days' time period.
The appeal has been filed on 23rd February 2024 as such there is a delay of 12 days for which this application for condonation of delay has been filed along-with memorandum of appeal.
That delay in filing the appeal is primarily because of technical glitch on e-filing portal for which deponent cannot beheld responsible 9. It is therefore prayed that appellant prayer for granting the condonation for delay of twelve day in filing the appeal may kindly be accepted.”
1.1 Considering the reasons given in the same, and shortness of delay, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The present appeal arises from order dated 13.12.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’).
2.1 In this case, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the course of online verification under “Operation Clean Money” it was found that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 33,03,600/- in its bank account maintained with State Bank of India, Patna. This amount was deposited during the demonetization period. The assessee had not filed any return of income, which prompted the Ld. CIT(A) to issue notice under Section 142(1) of the Act several times, which were not responded to. Thereafter, the Ld. AO proceeded to pass a best judgment assessment and added Rs. 33,56,254/- under Section 69A of the Act.
2.2 Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not meet with any success on account of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the written submissions filed by the assessee, claiming that the impugned amount was deposited in his bank account as proceeds from sale of land, which was claimed to be in his 2 Rahul Kumar mother’s name. The assessee had stated that since his mother did not have any bank account, he had deposited the same in his own bank account. The ld. CIT(A) found certain discrepancies in this claim with respect to the facts on record and proceeded to confirm the addition. 2.3 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:
“1) The learned Assessing Officer's order is opposed to the Facts of the case and law. 2) Because, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the facts of the case and had confirmed the additions of Rs. 3356254 /- as income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the amount of Rs. 3200000/was received by family of appellant from sale proceeds of a parcel of land and source and nature of the amount was fully explained by the appellant. 3) Because, the leamed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the fact that there is no specific finding by lower authorities that unexplained money etc. is not recorded in the books of account of assessee. 4) Because, the leamed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the fact that appellant is not the owner of the amount and cannot be taxed in his hand. 5) The assessee craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
3. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee has filed several documents with an application for admitting additionally evidence as under: “Please refer to the above-mentioned appeal in which my client is appellant. As instructed by my client I would like to submit the paper book containing the paper which are relevant to the Ground of Appeal and which I would like to refer at the time of hearing. The said document could not be filed at earlier stage because the appellant belongs to humble background and could not arrange the documents on time.” It was averred by the Ld. AR that there is a good justification available for the impugned amount and given an opportunity it could be demonstrated before the authorities below in case another chance was given.
3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
Rahul Kumar 4. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the documents before us. It is felt that the ends of justice would be met in case this matter is remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It is expected that the documents filed before the ITAT are also filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who will then have an appropriate obligation under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. In such eventually the Ld. CIT(A) would call for a remand report from the Ld. AO and thereafter pass a speaking order. We direct accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 11.02.2025
Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] [Sanjay Awasthi] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11.02.2025 AK, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Rahul Kumar 2. ITO Ward 2(2), Patna 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)