Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 11,34,000/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for cash deposited in his bank account. The Assessing Officer made the addition, which was upheld by the first appellate authority. A previous remand by the Tribunal led to a de novo assessment where the addition was maintained.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the case was a second round of proceedings and the sole issue was explaining the source of the cash deposit. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one last opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee has provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the source of cash deposits in his bank account.
Sections Cited
68, 250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H (SMC
(Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri. Aijaz Abdul Sattar Malkani Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1)(2) 1303, Malkani Tower, Bandivali Hill Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021. Vs. Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai – 400102. PAN/GIR No. AFFPM4967G (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Prakash Jhunjhunwala Respondent by : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2007-08.
The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 11,34,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act towards cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is a partner in the firm M/s. A. M. Enterprises which is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is also a director in M/s. Curio Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had filed his return of income dated 26.04.2008, declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming (A.Y. 2007-08) Shri. Aijaz Abdul Sattar Malkani profit received from partnership firm as exempt amounting to Rs. 2,15,000/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order dated 24.12.2009 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, where the learned Assessing Officer (for short ‘ld. AO’) made an addition of Rs. 12,54,000/- as undisclosed cash credit in the assessee’s SB account maintained in Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jogeshwari (West), Branch on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transaction with supporting documentary evidence.
The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 02.02.2013 upheld the addition made by the ld. AO.
The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal which vide order dated 03.06.2016 in remanded the issue to the file of the ld. AO for de novo assessment. The ld. AO then passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 250 of the Act and upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 11,34,000/- towards the cash deposited in the assessee’s account and deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000/- which was deposited out of withdrawals from the partnership firm.
Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide an ex-parte order dated 13.06.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of the cash deposited in his account.
The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
The learned Authorised Representative (‘ld. AR’ for short) for the assessee stated that the assessee has got a good case on merits and prayed that the assessee may be given one last opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A).
(A.Y. 2007-08) Shri. Aijaz Abdul Sattar Malkani 9. The learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) for the revenue on the other hand vehemently opposed to remanding the issue back to the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee has been habitually non-compliant before the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that this is the second round of proceedings, where the assessee has preferred this present appeal challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). The only issue that requires adjudication is to explain the source of the cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account to the tune of Rs. 11,34,000/- by supporting documentary evidence. In order to extend the assessee with one last opportunity, we deem it fit to remand this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
We therefore direct the assessee to comply with the proceedings before the first appellate authority without any undue delay on his side and the ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue on the merits of the case based on the submissions of the assessee.