Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 10,66,000/- in a bank account during AY 2012-13, leading to reopening of assessment under Section 148 and an addition of Rs. 11,01,694/- under Section 69A as unexplained money, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee sought condonation of a 307-day delay in filing the appeal, citing status as an agriculturist from a remote village and lack of awareness of notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that while the assessee had not provided bank statements or loan details to the lower authorities, these documents, including 7/12 extracts showing agricultural income and a Bank of India loan, were furnished to the Tribunal. Finding that the assessee adequately explained the cash deposits with co-related evidence, the Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer did not sustain.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment and addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits were justified, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned based on the explanation provided.
Sections Cited
148, 69A, 271(1)(c), 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER This is an appeal filed against the order dated 14-06- 2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2012-13.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “1. The order passed by lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed.
2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act.
3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 11,01,694- u/s 69A of the Act.
1. 4. Ld. NFAC ought to have added peak balance of cash deposit in bank accounts rather than addition of entire credit side.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified. 6 Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified. Total Tax Effect Rs. 11,01,694”
Information with the Department was available that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 10,66,000/- in bank account maintained with Caira District Co.Op Bank Ltd. during assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue found that there was a cash deposit and thus reopened the case of the assessee. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27-03-2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, no return of income was filed. Despite giving statutory notices, the assessee has not responded the said notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 11,01,694/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee
The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 307 days for which the separate affidavit was filed by the assessee. The assessee is an agriculturist and residing in the remote village. The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 307 days for which the separate affidavit was filed by the assessee. The assessee is an agriculturist and residing in the remote village therefore was not aware of details of notice and the filing of second appeal. The ld. A.R. has given the detailed explanation for condonation of delay, hence the delay is condoned.
The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has given the details about the bank statement wherein the assessee has categorically mentioned that the amount deposited in the bank was out of the disclosed sources of income of the assessee as the assessee is continuously crediting the cash in the bank account which is the amount in return of the agricultural income derived by the assessee. The ld. A.R. pointed out page nos. 1 to 8 wherein the assessee has given details of bank account as well as the details of the 7/12 extracts of the land which is cultivated by the assessee. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the assessee has received certain amount as a loan from Bank of India which was also reflected in the 7/12 extracts and the same was also credited in the bank account. Thus, the assessee has given all the details of cash deposits. The ld. A.R. submitted that if the addition is not deleted then without prejudice the bank peak credit should be given to the assessee.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not given any details before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) related to the bank statement as well as the loan taken from Bank of India either to the Assessing Officer as well to the CIT(A). The amount which is shown as credit entries is in respect of cash received and credited. But before me, the details of bank account as well as the details of 7/12 extracts which quoted loan taken from Bank of India in respect of the amount which is reflected therein. Thus, the assessee has shown the details of cash received as well as the deposits made 3 Kanubhai Maganbhai Patel, A.Y. 2012-13 in the bank accounts which are co-related in page 1 of the paper book. Therefore, the assessee has given the details and explained amount credited in the bank account. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not sustain. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.