HUSAINSAB RAJESAB BAGWAN,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, , BIJAPUR
Facts
The assessee deposited Rs. 11,98,000 in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period. The AO issued notices for filing return of income, which the assessee failed to furnish, leading to an assessment order under section 144 of the Act.
Held
The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the AO's order and dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, considering the assessee is a vegetable vendor and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the revenue authorities.
Sections Cited
144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Per Bench This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the information was gathered under ‘Operation Clean Money’ that the appellant deposited substantial cash of Rs.11,98,000 in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in its bank account during the demonetization period. The AO issued notices for filing return of income, but the assessee failed to furnish it.
ITA No.188/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3
Letters and final show cause notice was issued on 25.10.2019 by the AO. Due to non-response, the AO passed the assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act and assessed income of entire cash deposits of Rs.11,98,000 u/s. 69A of the Act.
On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) issued notices but the assessee did not file any submission in support of its grounds of appeal. Therefore the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee has filed before the ITAT.
The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a vegetable vendor and he has no other source of income, except purchase and sale of vegetables. The amount was deposited during the course of demonetization period out of his savings. He was not aware of income-tax proceedings and therefore could not comply with the notices issued by the CIT(Appeals). The ld. AR requested for another chance and undertook to substantiate the case of assessee with necessary documents before the revenue authorities.
The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had not availed several opportunities provided by both the revenue authorities even the return of income was not filed by the assessee.
After considering the rival submissions, we note that the assessee has not availed opportunities before both the revenue authorities. The AO has made the addition and the CIT(Appeals) has
ITA No.188/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3
confirmed the same. Considering the submissions of the ld. AR that the assessee is a vegetable vendor, in the interest of justice, we think it fit to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. Accordingly, we remit the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law after reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce the correct email-id and contact details and all the relevant documents to substantiate his claim and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court through virtual hearing on this 28th day of February, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Bangalore, Dated, the 28th February, 2024. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.
