Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2019-20, but deposited Rs. 9,58,000/- and withdrew Rs. 2,88,66,500/- from a bank account. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made additions under Section 69A due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices, determining a total income of Rs. 38,44,650/-. Subsequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance.
Held
Following a previous Tribunal order for the same assessee in AY 2018-19, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also instructed to comply and produce relevant documents.
Key Issues
1. Validity of additions made under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits and a percentage of cash withdrawals. 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.
Sections Cited
Section 69A, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 144B, Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2019-20.
There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Officer at the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making an addition of Rs 9,58,000 under section 69A of the Act, being cash deposited by the appellant in his bank account. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition inasmuch as he has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the impugned addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as the cash deposited by the appellant is out of his business activities and hence, the impugned addition made under section 69A is bad in law and needs to be deleted.
2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs 28,86,650 under section 69A of the Act, being 10 per cent of the cash withdrawn by the appellant from his bank account. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition inasmuch as he has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the impugned addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as the cash withdrawn by the appellant is for his business activities and hence, the impugned addition made under section 69A is bad in law and needs to be deleted.
The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal
.”
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information available on insight portal that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.9,58,000/- in his bank account maintained with Mahanagar Cooperative Urban Bank and has also withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,88,66,500/- from the same bank account and no return of income was furnished. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee after following due procedure and approval from the competent authority. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) and show-cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not made any compliance in response to above notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.02.2024 completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act and determined total income at Rs.38,44,650/- as against no return filed by the assessee.
Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of assessee itself vide order dated 06.10.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 has already set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the appeal afresh by observing as under :- “4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 completed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 27.02.2024 and ld. AO made addition of Rs.28,44,560/- as assessee has not filed the regular return of income. Aggrieved with the additions assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then on the given dates of hearing fixed on 09.09.2024, 28.10.2024 and 25.02.2025 assessee failed to appear. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee has necessary details in support of its claim that impugned addition is uncalled for. However, due to non- appearance before ld.CIT(A) the grounds raised
by the assessee have been dismissed.
5. We therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A). In the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide in accordance with law and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”
8. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself (supra), we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for this assessment year also i.e. A.Y. 2019-20 and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/evidences/submissions in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per