Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.238/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018
Bhusawal Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., R.K. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Khadka Ward-2(1), vs. Road, Near Gadkari N. JALGAON – 420 051 Bhusawal, JALGAON. Maharashtra. PIN – 425 501.PAN AAFCB9430R Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta
Date of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18,
arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short
the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/
2023-24/1057773548(1), dated 07.11.2023, in proceedings
u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s
behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The assessee pleads the following substantive
grounds in the instant appeal :
“The Ld. AO erred in making (&. CIT (A) erred in
confirming) addition of Rs.6,28,500/- u/s 69A of the IT
Act.
2 ITA.No.238/PUN./2024
1.1. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated
the fact that the source of cash deposit was fully
explained. 2. The Ld. AO erred in disallowing (& CIT (A) erred in
confirming) claim of deprecation on set-top box of
Rs.12,11,738/-.
The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the
Grounds of Appeal at any time before or during the course
of hearing of the case.”
Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of
hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly
made the impugned sec.69A addition of Rs.6,28,500/-
representing the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.4,12,500/- in
HDFC and Rs.2,16,000/- in it’s Central Bank of India
account(s), respectively. This case has been emanated in light
of the impugned learned lower authorities discussion that the
assessee could not prove source of the said cash deposits so
as to get out of the rigor of the provisions of the Act and
therefore, the learned lower authorities have rightly treated the
same as unexplained cash.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing stand. It is an
admitted fact that the assessee is a company engaged in
providing cable set top services. The same has remained
3 ITA.No.238/PUN./2024
undisputed at the Revenue’s behest as well. It is observed in
these peculiar facts that possibility of assessee having derived
cash receipts in it’s regular business activity(ies); although not
substantiated by filing all relevant details, could not altogether
ruled-out. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate in
larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.3.5
lakhs only out of that in question of Rs.6,28,500/- would be
just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be taken
as a precedent in any other case(s). The assessee gets relief of
Rs.2,78,500/-. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
Ordered accordingly.
Now comes the latter issue of appreciation
disallowance on set-top boxes of Rs.12,11,738/- made by both
the learned lower authorities respective orders.
Learned DR could hardly dispute that the same
requires afresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer
regarding the cost of acquisition vis-à-vis written down value
[“WDV”] thereof going by assessee’s depreciation schedule. I
thus deem it as a fit case to restore the matter back to the
learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate
adjudication preferably within three effective opportunities of
hearing subject to the rider that it is the assessee’s sole risk
and responsibility to prove the case in consequential
proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
4 ITA.No.238/PUN./2024
Delay of 23 days in filing the instant appeal is
condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of
Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471
(SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical
aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above
terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.05.2024.
Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 17th May, 2024
VBP/-
Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
//By Order//
//True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.