NARAYAN ABARAO JADHAV PISHOR TAL. KANNAD PISHOR,AURANGABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), AURANGABAD

PDF
ITA 2064/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 October 2024AY 2012-13Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)5 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Hearing: 24.10.2024Pronounced: 25.10.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR.MANISH BORAD, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short "AY") 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act"] by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A) [in short ld."CIT(A)"] dated 02.08.2024 arising out of the Assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 11.12.2019.

2.

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice for hearing was issued online on 16.10.2024. However, considering the smallness of issue, I

ITA No.2064/PUN/2024 Narayan Abarao Jadhav

decide to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld.

Departmental Representative and available record.

3.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under :

“1. CIT(A) has erred in Taxing Cash Deposit of Rs. 12,30,200/- in Bank, as Income from undisclosed Source. Appellant prays for Cancellation/Deletion as Income is below Taxable limit. 2. Without prejudice, CIT (Appeals) has erred in assessing whole Cash Deposit in Bank i.e. Rs.12,30,000/- as Income from undisclosed Source. Appellant prays to cancel the same as Assessing Officer himself, in First Line of Order has stated, Assessee is in wholesale Business. 3. Assessing Officer has erred in considering Bank Deposit as Income. Appellant prays to submit that said Deposit is not Taxable Income. 4. Appellant denied Liability to Interest u/s.234A, 234B levied by Assessing Officer. 5. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, modify and/or withdraw the ground.”

4.

At the outset, ld. Departmental Representative relied on the

orders of lower authorities, stating that the assessee had not

appeared before both the lower representatives and nor even

before this Tribunal and therefore, the addition deserves to be

sustained.

5.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the material placed

before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and claimed

to be a wholesaler of household goods under the name and style

“Rahul Traders”. He did not file the return of income for A.Y.

ITA No.2064/PUN/2024 Narayan Abarao Jadhav

2012-13. Case of the assessee was reopened for scrutiny after

obtaining prior approval from ld. CIT(A) for the reason that cash

of Rs.12,30,200/- was deposited in the savings bank account

held with ICICI Bank Ltd. Due to non-appearance before ld.

Assessing Officer (AO), the alleged sum of Rs.12,30,200/- was

added in the hands of assessee and in the first appellate

proceeding the assessee failed to get any relief in the appeal from

ld.CIT(A).

6.

I note that the assessee in the statement of facts filed before

the ld. CIT(A) has stated as under :

“…………….. ……………… 4. He had by pass heart operation in September, 2019 and was on rest for three months. 5. Due to non attendance learned AO has passed exparte order and levied tax on all credits in bank account treating it as income and issued demand notice of Rs.6,48,930/-.”

7.

It is also stated before the First Appellate Authority that the

ld. AO ignored the deposit of withdrawals amount and levied tax

on the entire credits. The amount deposited also includes the

earlier savings, agricultural income and small loan taken from his

mother who is also an agriculturist. It is also stated that the

entire deposits in the bank account is exempt income and loan

amount, hence addition made by AO deserves to be deleted.

ITA No.2064/PUN/2024 Narayan Abarao Jadhav

8.

During the course of hearing, neither the assessee had

appeared nor any submissions have been filed. Had the assessee

been given one more opportunity, he could have submitted

certain proof of owning of agricultural land and earning of

agricultural land and also having income from M/s. Rahul

Traders. I therefore considering the information about the

continuous illness of assessee during the year 2019 who also

had undergone heart operation and also in the interest of justice,

and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to restore

the issue raised on merits to the file of jurisdictional Assessing

Officer for deciding it afresh. The assessee is directed to remain

vigilant in fresh proceedings and should refrain from taking

unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for

reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced on this 25th day of October, 2024.

Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RA (MANISH BORAD) JUDIC L MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 25th October, 2024. Satish

ITA No.2064/PUN/2024 Narayan Abarao Jadhav

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

NARAYAN ABARAO JADHAV PISHOR TAL. KANNAD PISHOR,AURANGABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), AURANGABAD | BharatTax