ANIL KUMAR SAXSENA,DELHI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE, SAWAI, SAWAI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash deposit during the demonetization period. The assessee claimed the amount was from past savings and starting a new business, but failed to provide documentary evidence. The appeal was heard ex-parte as the assessee did not appear.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposit. However, taking a liberal view, the assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and furnish explanations before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO for unexplained cash deposit is justified without proper opportunity for the assessee to present evidence, and if the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without considering principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
68, 115BBE, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SH. SANDEP GOSAIN & DR. M. L. MEENA
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the
order dated of the ld. CIT, Appeal/ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the JCIT(A)” dated 30.05.2024 which is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 25.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax
2 ITA No. 924/JPR/2024 Anil Kumar Saxena v. ACIT
Act (in short “the Act”) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle, Sawai Madhopur (in short “The AO”) in respect of Assessment Year:
2017-18.
The appellant-assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts that order passed by the A.O. is in bad in law and against the cannon of taxation. 2. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in law and facts by making addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 68 read 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Although we have furnished proper detail in our submission before Ld. AO that assessee has deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- cash out of his past savings and income as assessee has started his new business in F.Y. 2015-16. As this is very small amount addition made by A.O. by ignoring the assessee submission does not hold good keeping in mind the assessee is regular income tax payer since ITR filed from A.Y. 2007-08 and filed the return for A.Y. 2016-17 at Rs. 7,50,000/-. 3. The CIT(A) has erred on law and on facts in confirming the additions made by A.O. of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 68 read with section 115BBE without giving proper opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence and therefore the additions have been made against the principles of natural justice as per law. 4. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor
any adjournment application has been filed. Although, the appeal has been
acknowledged and notice of hearing have been served on the appellant
assessee at the email address given in the Memorandum of Appeal. Under
3 ITA No. 924/JPR/2024 Anil Kumar Saxena v. ACIT the circumstances, it was decided to hear the ld. DR and adjudicate the
appeal based on the material available on record.
A proposed ground no. 3, the ld. AR for the appellant has challenged
the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO of
Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE without giving proper opportunity of
being heard and to adduce evidence and thus, the additions have been
confirmed against the principles of natural justice.
The appellant-assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under
CASS. The AO has made an addition of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s.
115BBE of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained cash deposit
during the demonetization period.
The ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the contention of the appellant, has
categorically mentioned in the impugned order that the appellant-assessee
failed to furnish any documentary evidences before him during the
appellate proceedings to substantiate its claim regarding the source of cash
deposit in the Bank A/c. The ld. CIT(A) has further stated that the merely
making a statement that the source being personal saving cannot be seen
as a satisfactory explanation to substantiate cash deposit in absence of
documentary evidences being furnished.
4 ITA No. 924/JPR/2024 Anil Kumar Saxena v. ACIT 7. The appellant assessee in the grounds of appeal has stated that he
has furnished the proper details before the AO that the assessee has
deposited at Rs.4,50,000/- cash out of his past saving income as assessee
has started his new business in financial year 2015-16. However, he has
failed to produce any documentary evidences either before the ld. CIT(A) or
before us to substantiate the source of cash deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- in its
Bank A/c during the demonetization period. Taking a liberal view, the
appellant assessee may be granted adequate opportunity of being heard
by the ld. CIT(A) to furnish explanation regarding the source of the disputed
cash deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- made in its Bank A/c during the
demonetization period. Accordingly, we consider it deem fit to restore back
the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after
granting proper opportunity of being heard in view of the principles of
natural justice and adjudicate the matter after considering the material
evidence if any furnished by the appellant during the course of hearing
before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the matter is remanded back to the file of the
ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal de-novo as per law.
Before parting with, we make it clear that the Bench has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, therefore, the ld. CIT(A)
5 ITA No. 924/JPR/2024 Anil Kumar Saxena v. ACIT shall be at liberty to adjudicate its appeal de-novo in accordance with the
provisions of law.
In view of the above, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside, the
matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.10.2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The ld. CIT (4) The ld. CIT(A) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T., Jaipur (6) Guard File By Order,
Asstt. Registrar
6 ITA No. 924/JPR/2024 Anil Kumar Saxena v. ACIT
Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 30.09.24 Sr.PS/PS 2. Draft placed before author 30.09.24 Sr.PS/PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM Second Member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM Second Member 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Sr.PS/PS P.S./P.S. 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9. Date on which file goes to the AR 10. Date of dispatch of Order
