BASAVRAJ TANGADI,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6, BELAGAVI
Facts
The assessee filed ITR for AY 2017-18. The AO found cash deposits of Rs. 1,37,73,300/- during demonetization, which the assessee explained as proceeds from a money lending business. Dissatisfied, the AO made additions under sections 69A and 68, assessing total income at Rs. 78,12,950/-, which the CIT(A) confirmed.
Held
The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A) sustained the additions without providing the assessee proper opportunity or considering evidence regarding cash balance and sources. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing a fair hearing for the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions regarding cash deposits during demonetization without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee or considering their explanations and evidence.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 143(2), 142(1), 69A, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A. Nos. 94/PAN/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Basavaraj Tangadi, ITO-Ward-6, Vs “Shree Murughendra” , Civil Hospital Road, . Plot.no 54,Bouxite Road, Belagavi-590001. Vidhyanagar, Teachers Colony, Karnataka. Belagavi-590019, Karnataka. . PAN .No. AATPT3412G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)
Appellant by None Respondent by Shri.Narendra Reddy.Sr.DR
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 07.01.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement 08.01.2025 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of NFAC/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) sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
2 ITA. No. 94/PAN/2024 Basavraj Tangadi 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income on 24-11-2017 for A.Y.2017-18 disclosing a total income of Rs.14,02,810/- The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data, found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank accounts during the demonetization period and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS . 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 aggregating to Rs.1,37,73,300/-in six bank accounts in the F.Y.2016-17 and explanations were called to substantiate the deposits. And the assessee has filed the explanations about the money lending business supported with cash book of F.Y.2016-17, details of Loans, receipts of money lending business and bankwise cash deposits and credits. Whereas as the AO has considered the information and was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of the Act and made addition(i) u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.59,12,300/-(ii) addition u/sec68 of the Act of Rs.2,00,000/- and (iii) estimated the income from money lending business of Rs.2,97,840/- and assessed the total income of Rs.78,12,950/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2019.
3 ITA. No. 94/PAN/2024 Basavraj Tangadi 3. 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, findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and the assessee has filed the submissions on various dates. But the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record and none appeared on behalf of the assesse. The sole crux of the disputed issues envisaged by the assesse that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions without providing proper opportunity and overlooking the facts and material evidences. The assesse has filed the substantial details before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) has not considered the facts of availability of cash balance and sources with the assessee. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has dealt on the findings of the AO and has not considered the submissions/ evidences of the assessee. Therefore, we considering the overall facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing and accodingly restore the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and the CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the
4 ITA. No. 94/PAN/2024 Basavraj Tangadi information for early disposal of the appeal and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.01.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (GD PADMAHSHALI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji Dated: 08/01/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Panaji
5 ITA. No. 94/PAN/2024 Basavraj Tangadi
Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS
Draft proposed & placed before PS the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by PS Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed
