Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals for AY 2017-18. The first challenged an addition of Rs. 6,32,000 for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The second challenged a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 272A(1)(d) for alleged non-cooperation during assessment proceedings conducted ex-parte.
Held
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal against the cash deposits, restricting the addition to Rs. 1,00,000, considering the assessee's economic status. It also allowed the appeal against the penalty, noting that the non-cooperation was justifiable as most hearings occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Key Issues
1. Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE was justified. 2. Whether the penalty for non-cooperation under Section 272A(1)(d) was justified given the Covid-19 pandemic context.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 272A(1)(d), 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Parveen, Vs Income Tax Officer, VPO Khanda Kheri, Tehsil Hansi, Ward-1, Distt. Hisar, Haryana-125038 Hisar, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CUZPP6932 Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 07.01.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals in arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067643578(1) and his latter appeal CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067644586(1)’s common order dated 14.08.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Coming to the assessee’s quantum appeal learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly assessed his cash deposits of Rs.6,32,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of his failure to explain source thereof.
It is in this factual backdrop that the case file indicates that there could be hardly any dispute about the assessee having made actual cash deposits of Rs.6,32,000/- in the relevant previous year and he could not plead and prove all the relevant fact explaining it’s source in the lower appellate proceedings. The fact however remains that the assessee’s or his family’s social economic status vis-à-vis past accumulations could not be altogether denied in such an instance. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only out of Rs.6,32,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.5,32,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
So far as the assessee assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only. This assessee’s instant quantum appeal is partly allowed.
Now comes the assessee’s latter appeal Rs.10,000/- penalty on account of alleged non-cooperation thereby making the learned lower authorities to invoke section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that most of the hearings in the assessee’s assessment has taken place during Covid-19 pandemic outbreak and therefore, his no cooperation could very well be held justifiable in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s former appeal is partly allowed and latter appeal is allowed in very terms. A copy of the common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/01/2025.