Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for A.Y. 2017-18. The AO made an addition of Rs. 56,73,000/- under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetization period, which the CIT(A) partly sustained after granting some relief, leading the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in partly sustaining the addition under section 69A without providing proper opportunity and overlooking material evidence. Therefore, the disputed issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, adjudication on merits, and to provide the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in partly sustaining the addition under section 69A for cash deposits without providing proper opportunity and overlooking material evidence in support of such deposits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 69A, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 04.06.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec143(3) and U/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal
challenging the order of the CIT(A) partially sustaining the addition u/se 69Aof the Act by the Assessing Officer.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 19-01-2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.6,55,740/- The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data, Roquezinha Dsouza. found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank accounts during the demonetization period and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and further the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued. And there was compliance by the assesse. Whereas the A.O found that the assesse has made the cash deposits in bank accounts in the F.Y.2016- 17 and explanations were called to substantiate the deposits. And the assesse has filed the explanations vide letter dated 29.11.2019,2.12.2019 &23.12.2019 explaining the sources,details and the disputes in the court. Whereas as the AO has considered the information and was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of the Act and finally made an addition u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.56,73,000/- and also computed the business income of Rs.7,43,268/- and assessed the total income of Rs.70,72,008/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and the assessee has filed the submissions and the CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the extent of Rs.14,18,250/- and sustained the balance addition u/sec69A of the Act and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A),
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in partially confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the facts ,submissions and sources of cash deposits filed in the proceedings. Further the assesse has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities and the Ld.AR has substantiated the submissions with factual paper book. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
5.We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in partly sustaining the addition u/s 69A of the Act without providing proper opportunity and overlooking the facts and material evidences in support of cash deposits. The assesse has filed the all the details before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) has not considered the facts of availability of cash balance with the assessee. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has dealt on the findings of the AO and has considered the submissions of the assessee and has not accepted the evidences filed in the hearing proceedings. Therefore, we considering the overall facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing and accordingly restore the Roquezinha Dsouza. disputed issue for limited purpose to the file of the assessing officer for verification and for afresh adjudication on merits and the A.O. shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assesse should also cooperate in submitting the information . And we allow the grounds of appeal of the assesse for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal filed by assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2025.