Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual engaged in coal trading, had their assessment re-opened for A.Y. 2013-14 due to discrepancies between sales proceeds and bank deposits, and undisclosed cash deposits of Rs. 1,88,98,978/-. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 34 lakhs as unexplained loans and Rs. 1,88,98,978/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with 115BBE. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting the Rs. 34 lakhs addition but upholding Rs. 1,51,63,478/- of the unexplained cash credit.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the Rs. 34 lakhs addition, but a part of the unexplained cash credit (Rs. 1,51,63,478/-) was upheld due to a lack of proper submission from the assessee. Given this, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the unaddressed issue of Rs. 1,51,63,478/- back to the CIT(A) for re-examination and a decision on merits. The other appeals were also allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified, and if the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-examination of unsubstantiated amounts.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH”, RANCHI
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM : All the above captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders, all dated 20.02.2024 passed by ld.CIT(A), Patna-3, against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common except the figures and assessment years in question, therefore, all the four appeals are heard together and decided by this common order. 3. First we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in for A.Y.2013-2014. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business or profession of coal trading under E-auction System. The assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y 2013-14 on 19.07.2013. On examination of the ITR of the assessee, the AO observed that there was mismatch between the sales proceeds and the total deposits made by the assessee in its bank account. Further, it was also observed by the AO that the assessee had deposited cash/cheque amounting to Rs.1,88,98,978/- in its bank accounts and the same was not disclosed in its return for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Based on the above findings, the asessee’s case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining approval from the Competent Authority, by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to file return of income within the stipulated time. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on multiple occasions seeking explanation. But the submissions made by the assessee in compliance with the statutory notices issued were found to be incomplete and partial. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that Rs.34 lakhs was received by the assessee as loan and advance from various parties but the assessee has failed to furnish appropriate reply regarding the amount of Rs.34 lakhs and added to the total income of the assessee. Similarly, another sum of Rs.1,88,98,978/- found to be unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act along with Section 115BBE of the Act by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.2,36,93,040/-.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
6. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds, however, the contention of the assessee is that while passing the impugned order the ld.CIT(A) did not consider all the submissions made by the assessee and passed the impugned order simply allowing certain relief to the assessee but the main issue involved in the appeal was undressed by the ld. CIT(A), thereby giving partial relief therefore, at this stage, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to re-examine the issue regarding the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, ld.Sr. DR supported the decisions of the authorities below and stated that the impugned order is correct and there is no need to interfere in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A).
We after hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that in the present case of the assessee, the main grievance of the assessee is relating to two issues before the ld. CIT(A), one is relating to addition of Rs.34 lakhs, which has already been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and another is relating to addition of Rs.1,88,98,978/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, where relief was granted to the assessee to the extent of Rs.34,55,500/- but remaining sum of Rs.1,51,63,478/- was upheld by the ld.CIT(A) as there was no proper submission on the part of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, considering the above facts, we find it necessary to remand back the unaddressed issue of Rs.1,51,63,478/- to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issues and decide the appeal on merits after accordance with law.
The other appeals being to 126/Ran/2024 are identical to the facts and issue involved in our finding will apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals also. Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes.
In the above terms, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/10/2025.