PRAVIN SHANKAR PAKALE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1153/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 October 2024Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to submit requisite details without seeking adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income on a presumptive basis. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,89,000/- as unexplained cash credit during demonetization. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case regarding unexplained cash credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte
For Respondent: Shri B S Rajpurohit, Addl.CIT

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 30.03.2024 of the Addl. / JCIT(A) / NFAC, Panaji relating to assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Addl. / JCIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.3,89,000/- to the total income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income on 05.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.6,27,570/- u/s 44AD of the Act on presumptive basis. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.10,16,570/- wherein he made addition of Rs.3,89,000/- being the unexplained cash deposit of specified bank notes during the demonetization period by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

4.

Since the assessee, despite number of opportunities granted, did not make any submission, the Addl. / JCIT(A)-Faceless confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices, the Addl. / JCIT(A) / NFAC, passed the ex-parte order sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer has accepted the preceding and succeeding cash deposits in the same bank account whereas he did not accept the source of deposit of Rs.3 laks on 25.11.2016. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Addl./JCIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case before the Addl. / JCIT(A) by producing the relevant details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Addl. / JCIT(A) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the details before the Addl. / JCIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Addl. / JCIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th October, 2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →