GOPAL BHOLANATH BHARWAD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1467/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's business model of receiving cash and issuing cheques for telecom companies. It noted that the assessee offered income of Rs 7,64,570. While the assessee failed to provide complete details to both the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal considered the impact of COVID-19 and the nature of the business.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in selling prepaid recharge vouchers, deposited significant cash into bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, determining the total income at Rs 85,64,690. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, partly allowing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act were justified, and if the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Bholanath Bharwad
Hearing: 24.06.2024Pronounced: 26.07.2024

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:

1.

Mr. Gopal Bholanath Bharwad for A.Y. 2017-18 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 31st January, 2024, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 25th December, 2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(1)(5), Mumbai, was partly allowed. The assessee was granted seven different opportunities by the learned CIT (A), which were not availed and therefore, the order of the learned Assessing Officer so far as the additions were confirmed.

2.

Aggrieved assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

7.

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has also not furnished complete details before the learned Assessing Officer and before the learned CIT (A) also despite 7 opportunities assessee did not furnish the complete information. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities.

8.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. It is accepted fact that the assessee is engaged in sale of recharge voucher of various telecom companies. The assessee receives the sale consideration mostly in cash. This cash is deposited by the assessee in his bank account. From the bank account the assessee issues cheques to the various telecom companies. Therefore, to determine the total income of the assessee it is necessary to grant the deduction of sum paid to the telecom companies from the sale consideration. It is also clear that assessee has offered income of ₹7,64,570/-. It is true that assessee on many occasions did not furnish the complete information before the learned Assessing Officer and also before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). So far as the opportunities before the learned CIT (A) are concerned

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →