Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.
The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in not considering detailed written submission alongwith supporting documents filed by the assessee in Income-tax Portal on 22.02.2024 also by considering remand report forwarded to him for comments while passing order u/s 250 on 06.03.2024 by stating that '’the appellant has not submitted his comments on remand report” in Para 6.1 on Page 12 of his order. 2) On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition to the extent of Rs. 8,68,000/- out of addition of Rs. 12,18,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 2 69A for alleged unexplained cash deposited in bank account without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly and judicially. 3) On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating "Additional Ground of appeal” related to not allowing credit of TDS of Rs. 2,370/- on interest income assessed by him while computing tax liability duly appearing in Form 26AS raised before him. 4) Without prejudice to ground no. 1 to 3, on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of Assessing Officer in levying tax u/s 115BBE(1) @ 60% on alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 since applicable rate in the A.Y. 2017/18 u/s 115BBE was 30% as amendment proposed in the “The Taxation Law (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016” was applicable from 01.04.2017, i.e. from the A.Y. 2018/19 onwards and not retrospectively to the transactions made during the F.Y. 2016-17. 5) The assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground/grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in grain. The A.O. had received information that the appellant had deposited SBNs of Rs.11,38,000/- in Axis Bank, Durg. The A.O. had issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 12.03.2018 in response to which the appellant has filed return of income on 28.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs.2,35,690/-. During the assessment year under consideration, the appellant has shifted to Durg for doing mining stone business. Therefore, when demonetization was announced he had deposited SBNs in hand of Rs.11,38,000/- in bank during November and December 2016. During the course of assessment proceedings, the 3 appellant had filed Cash Book, Bank Statement, Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet, Computation of Income and copy of ITR. The A.O. has however not considered/accepted the same and treated the cash i.e. SBNs of Rs.11,38,000/- deposited in bank as out of unexplained sources u/s 69A of the IT Act and not out of cash balance of Rs.13,12,856/-. The A.O. has also assessed the business income at Rs.1,81,985/- as addition on account of business income. The A.O. had assessed bank savings interest received Rs.2,374/- as income from other sources without allowing deduction u/s 80TTA of the IT Act. Finally, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the IT Act vide order dated 09.12.2019 with the above-said disallowances by determining the income at Rs.14,56,059/-.
Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order dated 06-03-2024 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee & gave relief of only Rs.3,50,000/- & confirmed the addition of Rs.11,06,059/-. This is the order against which assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
When the appeal was called for hearing neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application was filed for 4 ITA No.885/PUN/2024 adjournment even after proper service of the notice of hearing. Therefore we proceed to decide the matter after hearing LD DR & on the basis of material available on the record.
We have heard LD DR & perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee furnished a written submission along-with supporting documents, before the First Appellate authority i.e. LD CIT (A)/NFAC. As per Rule 46A of the IT Rules, LD CIT(A)/NFAC send all these documents for the comments of the AO, who furnished his remand report before the LD CIT(A)/NFAC & asked to pass order on merits of the case. This remand report was also forwarded to the assessee by LD CIT(A)/NFAC for rejoinder if any. As per LD CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee has not submitted his comments on the remand report. But we find that the assessee has claimed to have furnished his comments on the remand report of the AO on 22-02-2024, but the same has not been considered by the LD CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts, without going into merits of the case, & to meet the ends of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC with direction to consider the rejoinder if any already submitted by the assessee & if not submitted then to provide an opportunity of hearing to the