MANJULA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1160/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 January 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not properly represented before the lower authorities, leading to the addition being sustained. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return for AY 2017-18, which was selected for scrutiny. The AO made an addition of Rs. 16,54,929/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made by the assessee are unexplained money and if the assessment order passed under Section 144 was justified given the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Acharya, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 24.01.2024Pronounced: 24.01.2024

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 22.11.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds:

1. The Assessment order to the extent of the disallowance is bad in law as well as on facts and is liable to be dismissed.

2. The Assessing Officer (Ld. AO or AO) has erred by stating that the cash deposits made during the year amounting to Rs. 16,54,929/- are unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act even though the cash deposits were explained.

3. The AO has erred in concluding that the appellant has been carrying on business while no such evidence on record is in possession of the AO to prove the same. The appellant has only earned income from house property during the year and the same was submitted before the AO during the assessment proceedings which is not taken cognizance off by the AO.

Manjula, Bangalore `Page 2 of 4 * 4. The AO has erred in applying the provisions of S. 144 of the Act while all the details sought during the assessment proceedings were submitted by the appellant.

5.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals] - NFAC has erred in adjudicating the cash deposits made before the demonetization period to be Rs. 5,37,900/- as against Rs. 4,03,000/- thereby reaching to inaccurate conclusions.

6.

The Appellant assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or to delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing of appeal, and to file written submissions and paper book at the time of actual hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

2.

Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed return of income for AY 2017-18 on 5th August 2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,53,720/-. Subsequently, the return was selected for scrutiny assessment U/s 143(2) of the Act by the ITO, Ward 7(2)(3), Bangalore (Ld. AO or AO) and assessment was concluded by making an addition of Rs. 16,54,929/- u/s 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposits made during the year as unexplained money. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Ld. AO and sustained the addition u/s 69A of the Act vide order u/s 250 of the Act dated 22nd November 2023. The assessee is aggrieved by the said order passed by NFAC/CIT(A) and hence, this appeal is filed before us.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act and also there was no proper reply before NFAC. Hence, the addition has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of Raipur Bench in the case of Adim Jati Sahkari Samiti Maryadit in dated 18.9.2023, wherein held as under and submitted that the issue not be remitted back to the file of ld. AO for fresh consideration:

Manjula, Bangalore `Page 3 of 4 “15. Apropos, the claim of the Ld. A.R. that the matter in all fairness be restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication, the same does not favor us. As observed by us herein above, the grounds based on which the order of the CIT(Appeals) has been assailed before us are devoid and bereft of any merit; therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the said count itself. Apart from that, we are of a firm conviction that the right vested with an appellant to approach the tribunal by preferring an appeal before it is for a limited purpose, i.e. a grievance that the assessment framed by the AO, or for that matter, order of the CIT(Appeal) were not according to law. In no case can the Tribunal be taken as a forum for an appellant who, as per his volition, had either adopted an evasive or lackadaisical approach before the lower authorities and not participated in the assessment or appellate proceedings to come up with its case for the first time before the Tribunal and, as a matter of right seek restoring of the impugned order to the file of the lower authorities for fresh adjudication.”

3.1 In our opinion, by non-representing before lower authorities, assessee has not derived any benefit otherwise the assessee suffered in view of the dragged litigations. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to remit the issues to the file of ld. AO for reconsideration which shall be decided after calling details from the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Jan, 2024

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →