JADOPUR SHUKUL PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SOCIETY LTD,,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, SIWAN, SIWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 452/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 January 2025Bench: SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity by the lower authorities to provide a list of depositors and present proper documentation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 1,39,52,822/- under section 69A of the Act for cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The appeal was filed after a delay of 171 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied an opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents before the lower authorities regarding cash deposits during demonetization.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

order

: 27.01.2025 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 171 days. A separate application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed. Considering the averments made in the said application, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and the same is taken up for hearing.

3.

The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs. 1,39,52,822/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits in the bank account during demonetization period.

I.T.A. No.: 452/PAT/2024 Jadopur Shukul Prathmik Krishi Sakh Society Ltd., AY : 2017-18 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee inviting our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that the assessee has not provided the list of the depositors. The assessee has duly pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without providing any opportunity to submit list of depositors. The assessee has also pleaded at the time of hearing that the Assessing Officer has also erred in not considering properly the documents and evidences placed before him at the time of assessment proceedings. It has been pleaded that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to bring the true and correct factual position before the lower authorities.

4.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee and in the interests of justice, in our view, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on this issue. Needless to say that Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present it’s case.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →