SRI SHANKAR SOUHARDHA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT ,GULBARGA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC

PDF · subscribers
ITA 877/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 June 2024AY 2015-166 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal heard the learned counsel for the appellant who submitted that the jurisdiction in the matter lies with the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty to file the same before the Hon’ble Bangalore Bench. The learned Departmental Representative for the revenue stated that they have no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal with the liberty sought by the appellant. In view of the application made by the appellant and the submissions made by both the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn with the liberty to the appellant to file the same before the appropriate forum as per law. The specific grounds of appeal regarding the invocation of section 69A, section 2(24), and section 115BBE were not adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit, is in appeal against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee had not filed its Return of Income for AY 2015-16. Proceedings under section 148A were initiated due to information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 2,86,89,300 in an IDBI Bank savings account. The assessee did not file a reply, leading to an order under section 148A(d). Subsequently, a return of income was filed declaring Rs. Nil. Despite notices under section 142(1) and show cause notices, the assessee failed to respond, resulting in an assessment order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and 144B. The total income declared in the return, Rs. 2,86,89,300, was treated as unexplained money under section 69A. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, disallowing additional evidence under Rule 46A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 2,86,89,300 with IDBI Bank can be treated as income of the appellant society by invoking the provisions of section 69A, when cash deposit is not covered as income under section 2(24) of the Act? (Question of law). 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,86,89,300 to the returned income is justified, given that the cash was deposited with IDBI Bank? (Question of mixed law and fact). 3. Whether the provisions of section 115BBE, concerning tax on special income, were correctly invoked when the amount is not income of the appellant? (Question of law). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the cash deposit is not covered as income under section 2(24) and that the addition made to the returned income should be deleted. It was also contended that section 115BBE was wrongly invoked as the amount in question is not income. The assessee also sought transfer of the appeal to the Bangalore Bench due to the location of its registered office. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to file before the appropriate forum.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(24),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 156,Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 04.12.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2015-16.

SRI Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit; A.Y. 2015-16 2. The facts in brief are that as per the specific information, the assessee had carried out following transactions during the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16.

Financial Name of the Bank Account No. Amount In Rs. Transaction description Deposited cash of Rs. IDBI 0876104000023427 2,86,89,300 10,00,000 or more in a BANK saving bank account LIMITED

3.

The assessee had not filed Return of Income for A.Y. 2015-16 and for that reasons the sources of cash deposits in bank account remained unexplained. proceedings u/s 148 was initiated and an opportunity was given to the assessee to explain the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16. Since the assessee had not filed any reply, it was logically concluded that he had no proper explanation with respect to the above cash transactions. Accordingly, order u/s 148A(d) of “the Act” was passed on 30.03.2022. Sufficient opportunity was granted as detailed in para no. 2 of the assessment order. Subsequently, the assessee has filed return of income on 4.11.2022 as per provisions of section 148 of "the Act" declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Since the assessee has not complied the notice under section 142(1) and show cause notice was given and last opportunity was afforded before completing the assessment under SRI Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit; A.Y. 2015-16 section 144 of “the Act”. Since assessee has completely failed to respond to the various notices, therefore, the assessment order was passed under section 144 of "the Act" r.w.s. 147 and 144B of "the Act". Accordingly, the total income as per return filed on 04.11.2022 i.e., Rs. 2,86,89,300/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, notice of demand under section 156 of "the Act" was issued and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) has been initiated separately.

4.

Against this order dated 04.03.2023 of the Ld. AO, Assessment Unit, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the addition of Rs. 2,86,89,300/- as income of the appellant society by the Ld. AO. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the appellant wanted to file additional evidence, however, as per Ld. CIT(A), the appellant has failed to make out a case for additional evidence under Rule 46A and hence not allowed to file additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) is challenged in the present appeal on the following grounds: -

a. “The ld. AO erred in holding that, an amount deposited with bank Rs. 2,86,89,300 as the income of the appellant society by invoking the provisions of sec. 69A, because the cash deposit is not covered as income u/s. 2(24) of the Act. b. The ld. AO erred in holding that, a sum of Rs. 2,86,89,300 as its income, when it is obviously available on the record that, the cash was deposited with IDBI Bank. Therefore, your appellant SRI Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit; A.Y. 2015-16 prays that, the addition made to the returned income may please be deleted. c. The ld. AO erred in invoking the provisions of sec. 115BBE, tax on special income, when it is not an income at all of the appellant.”

5.

Before opening the argument, the Ld. AR on behalf of Appellant/assessee has informed the Tribunal that he had filed this appeal online with the request to be listed before the Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench but he is not aware as to how the same has been listed before this Bench, at Mumbai. The Ld. Counsel has made a request to transfer the case to Bangalore Bench of Hon’ble ITAT.

6.

When it was pointed out to the Ld. AR that there was no jurisdiction with this bench to transfer the case as requested, the Ld. Counsel sought adjournment for next date for seeking necessary instructions and to move an application for withdrawal of the present appeal with the liberty to file the same in the appropriate forum.

7.

At the time of hearing of the appeal on 30.05.2024, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has moved an application with the subject “transfer of case before ITAT Mumbai Bench to Karnataka Bench or request to permit to withdraw the case.” The contents of the application are as under:

“The Appellant hereinabove filed an appeal online before the ITAT against the order passed against it u/S.250 of the Income Tax Act dated 04/12/2023 bearing the above number. The said Page | 4

SRI Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit; A.Y. 2015-16 appeal was allotted to Mumbai bench despite the fact that the registered office of the Appellant is located in Shankar Math, near Datt Mandir, Brahampur, Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) 585103. The said address has been stated in the order passed u/S. 250 itself. It is humbly stated that it would be highly convenient for the Appellant and for its advocate to appear and argue the matter in Bengaluru. It is further humbly state that the Bengaluru Bench of the ITAT has jurisdiction on the above filed appeal as the Appellant is located in the state of Karnataka. The said appeal may have been allotted to the Mumbai bench by oversight. Further it is humbly requested to permit me to withdraw the case with reserve the right to file appeal in Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Wherefore it is humbly requested that the above appeal he transferred or permit to withdraw.”

8.

We have heard the Ld. Counsel/AR on behalf of the assessee/appellant who would submit that since the jurisdiction in the matter is with the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and therefore this appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty to file the same before the Hon’ble Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

9.

We have also heard the Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue who has no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal with the liberty sought by the appellant.

10.

In view of the contents of the application as reproduced above, the present appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty

SRI Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit; A.Y. 2015-16 to the appellant to file the same before the appropriate forum as per law.

11.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

12.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2024

More judgments on Section 2(24)

All 355 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(24) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →