GAJANAN BANDU KANULE,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -(3), JALNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1510/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 October 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the lower authorities and decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is permitted to repeat the additions if the assessee fails to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a significant sum of cash into his bank account but neither filed a return nor provided details of the source to the AO. The AO made an addition for unexplained cash deposits, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) due to non-attendance.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits is justified when the assessee failed to provide details. Whether the assessment order is bad in law due to invalid notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jadhav (Asst. of A.R.)
For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Hearing: 01.10.2018Pronounced: 03.10.2018

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

This is the appeal filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad dated 20-03-2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Grounds raised by the assessee are extracted here as under :

“1. Addition of Rs.33,72,500/- The Ld. ITO is not justified in making addition of Rs.33,72,500/- as unexplained cash deposited in bank. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non- attendance. 2. The valid notice u/s.148 is not served on the appellant therefore the assessment order framed is bad in law. 3. The appellant may kindly be allowed to add and amend the Grounds of appeal.”

2 ITA No.1510/PUN/2017 Shri Gajanan Bandu Kanule

3.

Brief facts of the case include that assessee is an individual.

During the year under consideration, AO noticed that assessee made

cash deposits to the extent of Rs.36,82,650/- into the Savings Account

No.5521003433 maintained with Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Shelgaon

Branch, Taluka Badnapur, Dist, Jalna. Neither assessee filed any

return of income nor presented himself before the AO during the

scrutiny assessment. Assessee did not produce any details before the

AO regarding the source of the said cash deposits. Eventually, in the

absence of any details from the assessee, the AO vide his order u/s.144

r.w.s. 147 of the Act, invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act

and made addition of Rs.33,72,500/- as unexplained cash deposits.

4.

In the First Appellate proceedings also, the assessee did not chose

to appear before the CIT(A) satisfactorily. The CIT(A), based on the

material available on record and relying on the judgment of Hon’ble

Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254

ITR 449, confirmed the said addition made by the AO.

5.

Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present

appeal before the Tribunal with the grounds mentioned above.

6.

Before me, Asst. of Ld. AR for the assessee appeared and

submitted that the case of the assessee was not represented before the

lower authorities. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee

is in a position to represent his case along with the documents

necessary for adjudication.

7.

On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted for confirming the orders of

the AO/CIT(A) considering the assessee’s non-cooperation at the time of

assessment/appellate proceedings.

3 ITA No.1510/PUN/2017 Shri Gajanan Bandu Kanule

8.

On perusing the facts of the case and the submissions made

before me, it is evident that the assessee failed to represent before the

AO as well as the CIT(A). Most of the additions are made, in the

absence of any explanation of the assessee, justifying the source for the

cash deposits in the bank accounts. Considering the fact that the

assessee undertakes to represent before the Revenue during the set

aside proceedings, if an opportunity is given, I felt it appropriate to

remand this issue to the file of AO for one more round of assessment

proceedings. AO is at liberty to repeat the additions in case of non-

cooperation or non-attendance by the assessee for any reasons.

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced on this 03rd day of October, 2018.

Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 03rd October, 2018. Satish

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad 3. आयकर आयु� / The Pr.CIT-1, Aurangabad 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार

स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →