Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 15/04/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "A FOR THAT, Assessing Authority failed to appreciate that the difference of Rs. 17,33,502/-between revenue from operations reported by the Appellant for the period under consideration viz., Ra: 6,90,50,501/-and that reflected in Form 26A5, viz, 7,07,84,003/ is due to the consideration of transactions/ services rendered by the Appellant during the period AY. 2016-17 as also A.Y 2018-19. B FOR THAT, the computation with regard to the determination of revenue of operations is detailed in the table below:
A perusal of the aforesaid table would transpire that there is no misreporting of income of any kind and no suppression of turnover resulting into addition of the same. It is also stated that the original bills for the said transactions were also produced before the Assessing Officer at the time of adjudication proceedings, but the same was discarded for no plausible reason.
C FOR THAT, with regard to allegation of unexplained cash deposits are concerned, it is stated that the same is nothing but re-deposition of the balance amount of cash standing as on the day of demonetization. The said cash was withdrawn by the Appellant to meet the operational expenses, the payment of which are to be made by cash only and no banking transactions could have been carried out.
That apart, out of the total cash deposits as reflected in the bank statement, the Appellant states that an amount of Rs. 6.50,000/- has wrongly been posted by the bank as cash deposits.
D. FOR THAT, the Ld. Assessing Officer was equipped with the bank statements of the accounts maintained by them with different banks, still the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to take note of the fact that during the demonetization period, viz., from 08.11.2016 to 31.03.2017, although the Ally Enterprises Vs D/ACIT Appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 49,50,000/-in the account maintained by it in Federal Bank, the Appellant, in order to meet the operational expenses which are to be paid in cash, but also has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- from the same and Rs. 40,80,121/- from the account of South Indian Bank. E. FOR THAT, the Ld. Assessing Authority failed to consider that the total operational expenses paid in cash to the tune of Rs. 62,56,161/-is much more than the amount which has been deposited by the Appellant during the demonetization period. F. FOR THAT, the Ld. Assessing Authority failed to take into consideration the pattern and nature of expenses, which are made in cash, in spite of being provided with all the details and bifurcation vide reply of the Appellant dated 12.12.2019. G. FOR THAT, the Appellant has already provided the entire details as was called for by the Ld. Assessing Officer in order to assist him to assess the income of the Appellant, it is wrong for the Appellate Authority to observe that the Appellant has defaulted in every stage of the Assessment Proceeding when Para 2 of the Assessment order speaks otherwise. H FOR THAT, other and further ground of Appeal
, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of this Appeal."
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from contractual receipts and income from other sources. It was also revealed that the assessee had deposited substantial cash amount during demonetization period. Return of income was filed on 28/10/2017 declaring total income of ₹ 28,57,454/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued on 13/08/2018 and duly served on the assessee. Other various statutory notices were issued and duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer also issued a show cause notice dated 10/12/2019 and in response thereto, though the assessee also filed a reply but no other details were produced by the assessee Ally Enterprises Vs D/ACIT for verification. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20/12/2019 and made additions of ₹ 17,33,503/- on account of undisclosed sources of income and ₹ 45,98,500/- as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee on the basis of material available on record.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the assessee has consistently defaulted at every stage of the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings.
4. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.
5. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that no proper and sufficient opportunities were provided by the lower authorities. The ld. AR prayed that matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merit.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR has not raised any serious objection.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the case was not heard on merit as there was no compliance at both the stages. Thus, in the interest of justice, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merit by providing reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) and explain the genuineness of the claims by producing all relevant details before him. In the Ally Enterprises Vs D/ACIT result, the grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
8. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order announced in open court on 05th January, 2026.