Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE
अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri M.Madhusudan, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing 17.04.2024 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R
Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056373733(1) dated 21.09.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2 A.Y.2017-18 Shaik Allauddin, Vijayawada
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, engaged in the business of booking railway wagons from South Central Railway for transportation of fruits, fish, vegetables and flowers etc. offered income at the rate of 8% of receipts of Rs.60,70,109/-. The assessee was not maintaining any books of accounts for the said activity. The Assessing Officer (AO) has considered income on this activity @10% during the A.Y.2017-18, since the assessee offered income during the A.Y.2016-17 @10%. The AO further observed that the assessee had entered into a sale agreement for sale of agricultural land to the extent of 9.88 acres, (share of the assessee being 4.51 acres), which belongs to the family of the assessee for Rs.59,28,000 vide unregistered deed dated 03.10.2016. Against the said sale agreement an advance of Rs.40,00,000/- was received by the assessee, out of which, the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.22,64,000/- in SBNs into two bank accounts maintained with Syndicate bank. Since the assessee has furnished only unregistered sale agreement, but not sale deed, the AO treated the SBNs of Rs.22,64,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the unregistered sale agreement produced without verifying the genuineness of the same The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the replies filed for the notice issued after demonetisation period vide transaction number 3716212149 on 10.03.2017
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not providing the adjournment time requested by appellant due to health conditions of the appellant and passed the order in hurry.
3. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the hearing the appellant prays that the additions made may be dropped or grant such other relief as the Honourable Appellate Tribunal deems fit.
6. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee deposited the amount of Rs.22,64,000/- in SBNs out of the advance received for sale of agricultural land to the extent of 9.88 acres. The Ld.AR further submitted that the revenue authorities are not justified in ignoring the unregistered sale agreement as well as the replies submitted in response to the notices issued and without even considering the request of the assessee seeking adjournment passed order in a hurry. He, therefore, pleaded that the assessee may be given an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim with material evidences.
7. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given enough opportunities by the revenue authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. The Ld.DR therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
8. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, it is evident that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.21,40,000/- & Rs.1,24,000/- in Account Nos. 33432010079976 and 33431250001072 respectively by way of SBNs totalling to Rs.22,64,000/- during the demonetization period out of the advance received for sale of agricultural land to the extent of 9.88 acres during the A.Y.2017-18. The only contention of the assessee is that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case with the evidences in support of his claim and therefore pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to pass order after verification. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued by the revenue authorities and cooperate with the department during the proceedings.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8th May, 2024. (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 08.05.2024 L.Rama, SPS