Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, J.M: Present appeal filed by the assessee is arising from the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {Ld. CIT(A)} dated 11.03.2024 having DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062416985(1) and relates to Assessment Year 2017-18 2. The facts leading to the filing of present appeal are that the assessee is an individual and has PAN No. EHNPK9918M. For the year under consideration an information, revealing that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.10,09,487/-, has come into the possession of the Assessing Officer and hence on the basis of this information, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Since the assessee has not filed any return of income for the impugned assessment year, the Assessing Officer has issued a notice u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dt.12.03.2018 and directed the assessee to file the return of income. However, there was no response from the side of assessee. Thereafter the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act. During the best judgment assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that there are credits of Rs.95,79,297/- in SBI account of the assessee. Finally, the Assessing Officer made two additions u/s.69A of the Act comprising of Rs.10,09,487 on account of cash deposit by the assessee during demonetisation period and addition of Rs.95,79,297 on account of credits appearing in the bank account of assessee held with SBI.
Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and contended that the Assessing Officer has erred in treating the credits appearing in the bank account of SBI as unexplained credits and the Assessing Officer has also erred in adding the cash deposits by the assessee during the demonetisation. The Ld. CIT(A) after perusing the material on record partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in as much as the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to verify the source of credits of Rs.57,60,186 and sustained the remaining addition of Rs.38,19,111 + Rs.10,71,000.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal and at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in restricting the directions given with respect to the verification of credit appearing in the SBI account. The learned counsel for the assessee prayed that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to verify the source of entire credit as well as the source of cash deposits during demonetisation.
The Ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue relied upon the orders of authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that though the assessee has not filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year yet it is settled position of law that taxes are to be levied in accordance with law and if an assessee successfully explained the source of the amount deposited in the bank account and his or her income is below the taxable limit then non-filing of return would not be fatal to the fate of an assessee under Income Tax Act. Therefore, considering the totality of facts, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine the case afresh. We clarify that in remand proceedings the Assessing Officer will verify the source of all the credits of Rs.95,79,297/- as well as the source of Rs.10,71,000/- deposited by the assessee during demonetisation period.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th Sept., 2024.