SHRIKRISHNA GENDAJI MAKODE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 417/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not conduct proper inquiries and the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

A search action on a cooperative society revealed large unexplained cash deposits in account holders' accounts, including the assessee. The assessee, a non-filer, failed to provide explanations or evidence to the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment made by the AO based on best judgment was justified without proper inquiry, and if the CIT(A) passed a speaking order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 69A,Section 145

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Arora
For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 30/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16. Since the grounds of appeal and facts and circumstances are similar, hence, common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi

Shrikrishna Gendaji Makode ITA no.417-418/Nag./2023 State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (PAN:AADAS77820) on 26/05/2017. During the action, it was found that the huge money was deposited in the bank accounts maintained in the society and during the course of assessment proceedings the society could not explain the source for the same. The main allegations against the society leading to search action are as under: “The society has allowed huge cash deposits in the account of its account holders whose creditworthiness is doubtful.

2. Pre-search, post search and assessment stage Inquiry in respect of account holders, in whose accounts substantial cash deposits were made, most were either untraceable or person of very no/low means.”

3.

The assessee is also an account holder and has been a non-filing of return of income. There was no compliance before the Assessing Officer and he even did not submit a valid return of income despite being issued notice under section 145 of the Act within the due date. The Assessing Officer was constrained to pass a “Best Judgment Assessment” by adding the entire credit entries under section 69A of the Act in the respective years.

4.

The matter was carried before the learned CIT(A) but the assessee here also failed to submit any response apart from making certain submissions that the funds were mostly routed and he had acted as commission agent for a number of small farmers having marginal holding. His role was thus limited to a mediator and primarily the money does not belong to him. However, bereft of any documentary evidences, the appeal was dismissed for both the years under consideration.

5.

During the course of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no proper response, as the assessee was Page | 2

Shrikrishna Gendaji Makode ITA no.417-418/Nag./2023 not guided by an astute professional to guide him in this matter. He is now in a position to submit all the documents and evidences to establish the nature of source of the deposits. He accordingly, pleaded that he may be given one opportunity to pursue his case.

6.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently protested in the matter and submitted that the conduct of the assessee deserves no possible assistance from the Bench.

7.

We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It seems there was no proper enquiry and investigation conducted by any of the authorities below at any point of time. Further, the learned CIT(A) was duty bound to pass a speaking order which he has failed to do, as his order is cryptic. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it expedient to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after making such enquiries as deemed expedient. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and be co-operative with the Department in replying to their queries promptly.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/05/2024

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →