PARIMALA SHYLAJA RUDRAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE
Facts
The Assessee, engaged in bus ticket booking and money transfer services, declared an income of Rs. 3,14,160 for AY 2017-18. The AO added Rs. 28,38,000 to the Assessee's income, representing cash deposits during demonetization, as no explanation was provided. The Assessee's appeal before the Ld. Commissioner was dismissed due to a lack of response and supporting documents.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to provide necessary submissions and documents despite opportunities. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 28,38,000 on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization is justified. Whether the Assessee was provided adequate opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
69A, 250
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.99/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parimala Shylaja Rudrappa, v. The ITO, No.179, Ground Floor, Vishwa Ward-3(2)(1), Services, Opp: BDA Complex, Bangalore. Ringh Road, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage,Bangalore-560 072.
[PAN: AQPPR 2833 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri B.S.Balachandran, Ld. Advocate
Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Ld. Standing Counsel
Date of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024
O R D E R Per N.K. Choudhry (JM):
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.11.2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “the Ld. Commissioner”) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY 2017-18.
ITA No.99/Bang/2024 :: 2 ::
In the instant case, the Assessee being an individual during the year under consideration was carrying on the business of Bus Ticket Booking, Airlines Ticket Booking, Money transfer services of Suvidha point retailers etc. and collecting cash from various customers and providing the respective services. During the assessment year under consideration declared a total income of Rs.3,14,160/- under the head ‘income from business or profession’ by filing return of income on 17.02.2018 which was processed by CPC and subsequently, selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason ‘cash deposits during the year’. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the Assessee, in response to which, the Assessee furnished the requisite details as called for.
The AO by perusing the bank statements of the Assessee found that the Assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.28,38,000/- in its two bank accounts during the demonetization period, for which the Assessee has not offered any explanation or details of denominations of the amounts deposited in the bank accounts. Consequently, the AO added the said amount of Rs.28,38,000/- u/s.69A of the Act.
The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid addition before the Ld. Commissioner, who though afforded various opportunities for furnishing the submissions, however the Assessee in response to the notices, neither filed any reply nor any documents before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore, by Ld. Commissioner by observing “that the facts mentioned in Form No.35 cannot be considered in the absence of any supporting
ITA No.99/Bang/2024 :: 3 ::
documentary evidence and submissions, the Assessee has also failed to bring anything on record to support its grounds of appeal and to counter the additions made by the AO.” ultimately affirmed the said addition by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee.
The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that though various opportunities have been given to the Assessee for furnishing requisite submissions/response, however, the Assessee failed to respond the same, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and thus the Assessee do not deserve any leniency or relief as sought for in this appeal. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of relevant reply/documents failed to decide the issue in its right perspective and ultimately affirmed the said addition without giving independent findings, hence, for the just decision of the case and for substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim. The Assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. Commissioner if necessitates and to file the relevant reply/documents as would be essential and needed by the Ld. Commissioner. In case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
ITA No.99/Bang/2024 :: 4 ::
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 21st day of February, 2024, as per Rule
34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
TLN, Sr.PS (on Tour)
Copy to:
The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard File
// True Copy //
By Order
Dy./Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore
