Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a lecturer, deposited Rs. 11,95,000 in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under Section 69A, treating the deposits as unexplained money, which the CIT(A) sustained. The assessee claimed the deposits were from prior cash withdrawals.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence. It decided to restore the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
Key Issues
The key legal issue is whether the cash deposits made during demonetization were unexplained money under Section 69A or sourced from prior cash withdrawals, and if the assessee was given a fair opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
Section 69A, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 143(2), Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI
ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ,JM:
The assesse has filed the appeal against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A) Thiruvanantpuram passed u/sec143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assesee has raised the grounds of appeal
challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition u/sec69A of the Act made by the Assessing officer.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a lecturer in MES College Zuari Nagar, Goa. The assessee has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 4.08.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.8,54,310/-. Subsequently the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny James Christopher. and notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act are issued calling for the details. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the CASS reasons /information found that the assesse has made cash deposits aggregating to(i) Rs.6,55,000/- in Canara Bank Vasco De Gama Branch and (ii) Rs.5,40,000/- in the Corporation Bank Vasco De Gama during the demonetization period in F.Y.2016-17 and notice was issued to furnish the details of sources of deposits and to substantiate the credits in the bank account. Whereas the assesse has filed the explanations mentioning that the cash deposits in the bank accounts are out of cash with drawls made in F.Y2016-17 referred at page no.2 of the assessment order. Whereas the A.O. has dealt on the submissions/details and was not satisfied with the explanations and relied on the provisions of section 69A of the Act and judicial decisions and made addition of unexplained money u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.11,95,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.20,49,310/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3)of the Act dated 05.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, submissions and findings of the A.O but has sustained the addition u/sec69A of the Act and dismissed the assesee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assesse has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
James Christopher.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O overlooking the facts and submissions of the assessee in the proceedings. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed submissions along with supporting evidences in lieu of show cause notice dated 20-11-2019 after the compliance date on 9-12-2019 and whereas the assessing officer has passed the assessment order u/sec143(3) of the Act on 5.12.2019 and prayed for opportunity to substantiate the cash deposits with cash with drawls made in F.Y.2016-17 before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A) .
Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The crux of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition under section 69A of the Act without providing proper opportunity and overlooking the facts and material evidences. The assesse has filed all the details before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) has not considered the documents and information supporting the claim of the assesse. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has dealt on the findings of the AO and there are no findings on the submissions/evidences of the assesse filed in the proceedings referred and has not allowed the grounds of appeal. Therefore, considering the overall facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice shall James Christopher. provide with one more opportunity of hearing and accordingly restore the disputed issues to the file of the Assessing officer for afresh adjudication on merits and the A.O. shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information. And the grounds of appeal
of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.