Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed an income tax return for AY 2017-18. During demonetisation, cash deposits of Rs. 29,89,000/- were made into his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these as unexplained income and made an addition, leading to a significant demand. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, considering the substantial additions and the fact that the assessee had now submitted relevant documents and pleaded for a final opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present his case before the AO.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.
Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI
ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Addl/JCIT(A)- 1, Kolkata dated 28.02.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “The appellant is operating Bank Correspondence of Bank of Baroda and deposited cash of customer in his own account as per norms of Bank. ITO passed a order with undue
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual, filed the Income Tax return for assessment year 2017-18 with Gross total income Rs. 3,06,906/- and total taxable income Rs. 297,910/- having nil tax due and refund of Rs. 1520/- That the assessee has deposited cash in his bank account during demonetisation and the case was assessed by the ITO, Chittorgarh and the order was passed on 04.12.2019 with the amount of addition Rs. 29,89,000/-. The amount of addition is undue addition resulting in huge demand of Rs. 33,38,322/- on assessee. Hence, apply for appeal for relief and justice. The assessee is operating Bank Correspondence of Bank of Baroda and deposited cash of customer in his own account as per norms of Bank.
Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:-
Decision Upon perusal of the ground raised by the appellant and reasoning given by the AG im the assessment order, it is found that the appellant had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.29,89,000/- in his bank account in Bank of Baroda, Chikarda, Chittorgarh account No. 16960400000667, during the specified period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016) for which no explanation had been offered by the appellant despite repeated opportunities given to him. Also, the appellant had not responded to notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notices issued, Further, the nature and source of such Deposits made in the bank accounts were not explained. The AO has also relied upon certain judgements in the assessment order. Considering the above facts, it was held that, as the appellant failed to give any Sh. Prakash ChandraJat vs. Addl.JCIT explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits, hence the value of Cash deposits, appearing in the said bank account was rightly deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the appellant. Therefore, the Total Income assessed was taxed u/s 115 BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. The appellant has also not explained the source of cash deposits along with any satisfactory documentary evidence to explain the same. There is no illegality found in the order of AO. Therefore the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A). The present appeal filed against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) before us on the grounds as reiterated here in above.
5.1 After considering the rival submissions, perusing the assessment and appellate records, and appreciating the material placed before us, it is evident that the assessment was completed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. The assessee, however, has now submitted relevant documents to justify the nature and source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period and has pleaded for one final opportunity to substantiate his claim before the Assessing Officer.
In the interest of justice, and considering that the additions made are substantial, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be given a fair opportunity to present his case with supporting evidence. Accordingly, we deem it The assessee is directed to cooperate fully and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The Assessing Officer shall decide the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board.