ASHOK ATMARAM JAGDALE,PARGAON, DAUND vs. ADDITIONAL, JOINT, DEPUTY,ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 864/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 July 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence provided by the assessee and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was cautioned that the responsibility to file and prove facts lies with them.

What were the facts?

The assessee, operating as a merchant for money transfer services, faced an addition to his total income for unexplained cash deposits. He argued these deposits belonged to Spice Money Limited and not his personal income, but faced challenges in providing evidence due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made by a merchant operating for a money transfer service are to be treated as unexplained cash credits and added to the assessee's income. The issue also involves the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Mr. Parikshit Randive
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee‟s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi‟s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061642692(1), dated 28.02.204, involving proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

“1. Assessee operates as a merchant (ID - 34566) under Spice Money Limited, providing money transfer services, cash collection, recharges, and bookings. The process involves receiving cash from customers, transferring it to Spice Money Limited's wallet, which then promptly sends it to the destination bank. At the end of each day, Assessee deposits the cash balance into Spice Money Limited’s bank account, located 20 kms one way. Due to travel and security concerns, Assessee initially deposited cash into its own account before transferring it to Spice Money Limited's wallet. Assessee argues that these cash deposits belong to Spice Money Limited, not personal income and should not be considered as unexplained cash deposit income. Despite filing an appeal with the CIT, explaining a delay due to lack of awareness, language barriers, and consultancy reliance, it was rejected. Assessee seeks further appeal at ITAT, asserting the need for an opportunity to be beard in person.

2.

Considering the above points additions to total income of Rs.5,24 71,013 Us 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid. Thus penalty of additional income Us 271AAC 1 on account of unexplained cash credits of the Act should not be imposed. Note - We have already paid the penalty Us 272A 1 d along with interest.”

3.

Coming to the assessee‟s sole substantive ground raised herein challenging the correctness of both the lower authorities action assessing him for having derived total taxable income of Rs.5,24,71,013/-, learned counsel submits that he could not file all the relevant details in the course of assessment framed on 09.08.2021 as well as in the CIT(A)/NFAC „s lower appellate proceedings. He invited our attention to the assessee‟s detailed paper book‟s in three volumes each that now all the relevant evidence is now ready since the same could not be compiled during the assessment because of Covid-10 pandemic outbreak period and lockdown announced from time to time.

4.

The Revenue could hardly dispute in principle that not only the impugned assessment had been framed during the Covid-10 outbreak period but also the assessee prima-facie emerges as a money transfer. And also that the relevant detail herein amounts to additional evidence which requires afresh factual verification as per the Rule 28 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules.

5.

Faced with this situation, we admit the assessee‟s foregoing additional evidence since going to the root of the matter and restore his instant sole substantive grievance back to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication as per law preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to a rider that it shall be assessee‟s/taxpayers risk and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

6.

This assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 271AAC

All 982 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →