Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 12,00,000/- in a bank account during the demonetization period, for which the Assessing Officer made an addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) partially sustained the addition to Rs. 10,00,000/-, leading the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including affidavits and bank statements, which could not be presented to lower authorities. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the sustained addition under section 69A and remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is provided a further opportunity to substantiate the claims.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits made during demonetization was justified, and if additional evidence should be admitted and considered by the appellate authority for substantiation.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 69A, 143(1), 143(2), 142(1), Rule 29 of ITAT Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI
ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the NFAC Delhi/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(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/sec69A of the Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income on 02-10--2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,88,520/- and the return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently Manoj Mulani Ramchandra . the case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS and the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data, found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period and the A.O has issued notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. Whereas the A.O found that the assesse has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.12,00,000/- in the corporation bank account in the F.Y.2016-17 and explanations were called for to substantiate the deposits and there was partial compliance by letter dated 9.12.20109 explaining the cash /sources of family members are utilised for deposit in the corporation bank account of the assesse. Whereas the AO has considered the information and was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of the Act and made addition u/sec69A of the Act of Rs12,00,000/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs.13,88,520/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2019.
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 granted partial relief and sustained balance of Rs.10,00,000/- and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
Manoj Mulani Ramchandra .
We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue that the CIT(A) has granted partial relief and sustained addition of balance amount of cash deposits u/sec69A of the Act as the transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences. The assessee has filed the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the affidavits of the family members with the bank statements, which could not be submitted before the lower authorities. Further the evidences play a important role in decision making in the adjudicating proceedings. We find the evidences in support of the claim could not be filed before the lower authorities for various reasons and we admit the additional evidence. Accordingly, to meet the ends of the justice and considering the principles of natural justice, we provide one more opportunity to the assesses to substantiate its claim along with evidences before the CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the CIT(A) order to the extent of sustainment of addition u/sec69A of the Act and restore the disputed issue along with the additional evidence to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information and we allow the grounds of appeal for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.03.2025.