Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
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.
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 decide to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available record.
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.
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.
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. 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).
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/-.”
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.
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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 25th day of October, 2024.