Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee declared huge cash deposits in a UCO bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these deposits as unexplained money and made an addition of Rs. 7,73,760/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-admission due to non-payment of advance tax.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was issued two PANs and had filed returns with the new PAN, but a bank account linked to the old PAN was used for transactions. The AO obtained information regarding these transactions and made additions. The Tribunal found it necessary to verify if the transactions from the old PAN linked account were considered in the return filed with the new PAN.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained money was justified without considering the assessee's written submissions and if the assessee was provided a proper opportunity of hearing, especially concerning transactions linked to an old PAN.
Sections Cited
144, 249(4)(b), 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH “SMC”: AGRA
O R D E R
The appeal in AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 19.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(2), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and in any view of the matter, the Ld. Authorities below have erred in making and upholding the addition of Rs. 5,47,766/-(8% of Rs. 68,47,079/-) as alleged unexplained money without considering the written submission made during assessment. proceedings and statement of facts given in Form No. 35 and written submission during appellate proceedings in correct perspective.
2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and in any view of the matter, the Ld. Authorities below have erred in making and upholding the addition of Rs. 7,73,760/-as alleged unexplained money without considering the written submission made during assessment proceedings and Page | 1 statement of facts given in Form No. 35 and written submission during appellate proceedings in correct perspective.
3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and in any view of the matter, the Ld. Authorities below have erred in not considering Income Tax Return filed on 30.03.2018 with another PANANMPA 1310N declaring total income of Rs. 418610/-.
4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and in any view of the matter, the Ld. authorities below have erred in not allowing the reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing by way of opportunity of personal hearing to substantiate the contents prior to drawing adverse inference while passing the impugned appeal order.
5. That, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw any ground (s) of appeal before and/or at the time of hearing.”
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Learned AO observed that there has been some huge cash deposits made in the bank account maintained with UCO bank vide Account Number 07460510000014 during the year, which also included certain cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period. Since the said deposit was very abnormal, the Learned AO proceeded to treat the same as unexplained money and added a sum of Rs. 7,73,760/- in the assessment completed under section 144 of the Act on 19-12-2019. The Learned CITA dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted by applying the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, stating that assessee had not deposited the advance tax.
Before me, the Learned AR submitted that assessee was issued two PANs and return of income was furnished by the assessee with new PAN. However, one bank account was linked with old PAN and accordingly, the bank account transactions which were linked with the old PAN were separately obtained by the Learned AO by getting information under section 133(6) of the Act directly from the bank and those transactions were subjected to addition in the assessment. He fairly stated that the transactions in the said bank account had been duly considered by the assessee in the return of income filed with the new PAN. He pleaded for factual verification of this aspect by the Learned AO. No serious objections were raised by the Learned DR in this regard. It is not in dispute that assessee had filed her return of income with the new PAN. Considering the submissions made by the Learned AR which is considered as a statement made from the Bar, I am inclined to restore this entire appeal to the file of Learned AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law with a direction to verify whether the bank account linked with old PAN is considered by the assessee in the return of income filed with the new PAN. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Learned AO for expeditious disposal of this set-aside assessment proceedings and also for surrender of old PAN. The assesee is at liberty to file fresh evidences, if any, in support of her contentions. With these directions and observations, the appeal is restored to the file of Learned AO and grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2025.