Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer noted cash deposits and transactions involving immovable property, adding Rs. 13,04,653/- as unexplained money under Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that the cash deposits were from agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 739-day delay in filing the appeal, observing that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding on merits due to the assessee's non-attendance. Recognizing the assessee as a farmer, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to present evidence and adjudicate the case on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits constitute unexplained money under Section 69A or are exempt as agricultural income under Section 10(1), and whether the ex-parte assessment and appeal dismissal without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee is valid.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 10(1), Section 69A, Section 139(1), Section 139(4), Section 276CC, Section 133(6), Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER
Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 12-07- 2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2013-14.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “1. The Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity for the appellant to respond to the notices and make submissions.
2. The Assessing Officer failed to consider that the cash deposits in question were proceeds from the appellant's agricultural activities, which are exempt under Section 10(1) of Bipinkumar Manilal Thakor, A.Y. 2013-14 the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the addition made under Section 69A is unjustified.
The appellant submits that in view of the judicial decisions in CIT v. Smt. Santosh Sharma (supra) and Raghubir Singh v. ITO (supra), cash deposits derived from agricultural income should not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A.”
The assessee did not file return of income u/s. 139(1)/139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee deposited cash in the bank account and there was sale and purchase of immoveable property. The case was reported in Non-filer Monetary System and was launching for prosecution u/s. 276CC of the Income Tax Act. Letter for launching prosecution u/s. 276CC of the Act was issued on 26-07-2017 to the assessee and was duly served. The assessee did not reply. Direction from additional CIT(A), Gandhingar Range was received vide letter dated 11-08-2017 to complete verification for prosecution cases by 21-08-2017. Permission was sought to call for information/conducting inquiry u/s. 133(6) vide letter dated 06-09-2017. Approval was for conducting impurity was received from PCIT, Gandhinagar vide letter dated 11/14-09-2017. Reasons for reopening were recorded on 29-09-2017 and proposal for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act was submitted on 29-09-2017. Approval for reopening was granted on 29-09-2017. Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee on 05-10-2017 and was served upon the assessee through RPAD. Information in response to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to the SRO, Gandhinagar was received vide letter dated 03-10-2017, thereby replying that there is no sale deed executed by the assessee as per search in their computerize record. The assessee did not file return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with the statutory 2 Bipinkumar Manilal Thakor, A.Y. 2013-14 notices, the Assessing Officer held that bank statement of saving bank account of assessee categorically mentions that there is a cash deposit of Rs. 12,01,500/- and amount of Rs. 1,03,153/- was credited by cheques. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13,04,653/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.
The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
There is a delay of 739 days in filing the present appeal before the tribunal for which the assessee filed detailed affidavit. The reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal appears to be genuine, hence delay is condoned.
The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and therefore one more opportunity be given to the assessee for representing his case properly before the CIT(A) along with the details.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is a farmer and engaged in agricultural activities. Before CIT(A), the assessee could not attend the hearing and therefore the CIT(A) has passed order for non-prosecution without commenting anything on merit. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back to the file of the CIT(A) for appropriate verification of the documents/details filed by the Bipinkumar Manilal Thakor, A.Y. 2013-14 assessee and verify the same. The CIT(A) will adjudicate the matter accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03-03-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 03/03/2026 a.k. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद