SHAKUNTALA KHUSHIRAMANI,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 154/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of cash deposits but reversed the AO's conclusion regarding returned income as unexplained money. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the assessee who failed to respond or sought adjournment, leading to a dismissal of the appeal. However, the CIT(A) was expected to provide points for determination and reasons for the decision.

What were the facts?

During the assessment proceedings for AY 2016-17, the AO noticed a cash deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period. The assessee explained this as savings and income, but lacking evidence, the AO assessed the total income at Rs. 7,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding cash deposits as unexplained money without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing to the assessee, and whether the CIT(A) followed the prescribed procedure under section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 22.05.2025Pronounced: 16.06.2025

ORDER

PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT(A)- Gwalior/10392/2018-19 by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-4, Chennai u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has partly allowed assessee’s appeal.

2.

Briefly stating, the facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.14,53,000/- in her bank account during demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, out of which the cash deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- was noticed to have been deposited during the year under consideration. The assessee explained the source of the aforesaid cash deposit out of accumulated savings over the years and the income earned during the year under consideration. For want of supporting evidences, the Assessing Officer assessed assessee’s total income at Rs..7,00,000/- (including returned income of Rs.2,68,800 u/s. 69A of the Act vide assessment order dated 16.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who confirmed the addition made on account of cash deposits made in the bank account. However, he reversed the conclusion of the Assessing Officer regarding treatment of returned income of Rs.2,68,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.

4.

This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the Act ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

None responded on behalf of the appellant/assessee. Perused the records and heard ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue, who supported the impugned order. 2 | P a g e

6.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld. CIT(Appeals) issued notices on 06.01.2021, 11.01.2024, 18.10.2024 and 21.11.2024, to which the assessee either failed to respond or sought adjournment.

However, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in part with the observations that for want of evidence, he is bound to accept the findings of the Assessing Officer, whereas the ld. CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication of relevant issue on merits. We order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons.

Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dt. 30.12.2024 is set aside.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →