Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 11.92 lakhs made under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits for AY 2017-18, initiated through proceedings under section 144. The assessee submitted 111 pages of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules to explain the source of these deposits.
Held
The Tribunal noted the relevance of the additional evidences, which the Revenue did not dispute. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, conditional on the taxpayer submitting and proving all relevant facts within three opportunities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 11.92 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified, in light of additional evidences submitted by the assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI (SMC
Date of hearing 23.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)- NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054431348(1) dated 18.07.2023 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Cases called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. I accordingly proceeded ex parte against the appellant.
It emerges during the course of hearing that whilst challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action in making section 69A addition of Rs.11.92 lakhs as unexplained representing cash deposits, the assessee has filed its additional evidences running into 111 pages under rule 29 of the ITAT Rules thereby explaining the source thereof.
It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s foregoing additional evidences indeed goes to root of the matter, being in the nature of relevant material for adjudication of the foregoing sole substantive issue. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication with the rider that the taxpayer shall submit and prove all the relevant facts at it’s own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd December, 2024.