SHAKUNTALA KHUSHIRAMANI,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR
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/-.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
69A, 143(3), 250(6), 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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 154/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17
Shakuntala Khushiramani, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Samadhiya Colony, Taraganj, Ward 2(1), Gwalior. Gwalior (MP). PAN : AGWPK0508K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 16.06.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 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.
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
ITA No.154/Agr/2025
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.
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.
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.
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
ITA No.154/Agr/2025
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.
3 | P a g e
ITA No.154/Agr/2025
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16.06.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
4 | P a g e
