RAMESH MALIKARJUN POTDAR,OSMANABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, OSMANABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 831/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A)/NFAC had properly considered the data submitted by the assessee as per the directions of the JCIT. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2017-18. Based on information of a cash deposit of Rs. 38,27,000 during demonetization, the AO reopened the assessment and taxed the amount as unexplained income. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC properly considered the assessee's submissions and the directions of the JCIT before taxing the cash deposits as unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 144A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Joshi
For Respondent: Shri Satyajit Mandal
Hearing: 12.08.2024Pronounced: 12.08.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.02.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under :

The appellant is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed for the A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the information received through ITBA (AIMS) that the appellant made a cash deposit during demonetization period of Rs.38,27,000/- with State Bank of Hyderabad, Omerga Branch, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax, accordingly reopened the assessment. Notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the appellant on 28.11.2017 calling upon the appellant to file the return of income. The appellant had not complied with the said notice nor the questionnaire issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (JCIT), Latur Range issued directions u/s.144A of the Act vide letter dated 24.06.2019, wherein the AO was directed to call for the Bank Statement of current year as well as the preceding and succeeding year and to do the detailed analysis of the cash deposits and then form an opinion as to the genuineness of the transaction of cash deposits made during demonetization period. In response to the directions, the appellant had filed the information, however, the AO without adverting to the submissions made completed the assessment by bringing to tax the cash deposits of Rs.38,27,000/- made during demonetization period as unexplained money and accordingly taxed the same u/s.115BBE of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC contending that the directions of JCIT u/s.144A are prejudicial to the appellant and illegal without jurisdiction and the cash deposits are supported by proper sources. However, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC rejecting the contentions of the appellant dismissed the appeal, confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. At the outset, I find that pursuant to the directions issued by the JCIT u/s.144A, the appellant had filed the data of cash deposits made during the demonetization period, as well as for the preceding year and the succeeding year. However, it appears that neither the AO nor the CIT(A)/NFAC had adverted to the information nor did the analysis in terms of the directions of the ld. JCIT. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires a remand to the file of AO with a direction that the assessment should be made pursuant to the directions of the JCIT issued u/s.144A of the Act.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 12th day of August, 2024.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →