Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of
National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 27.09.2023 for
the assessment year 2017-18.
Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :
The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading in
Tyres and Tubes in the name and style of “M/s. AB Tyres’. The Return
of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 26.09.2017 disclosing total
income of Rs.9,45,100/-. Against the said return of income, the
ITA No.277/PUN/2024
assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order
dated 19.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) after making addition of
Rs.67,40,500/- being cash deposited in the specified bank notes during
the demonetization period as unexplained money. During the course of
assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to produce certain
evidence in the form of Sales Register, Purchase Register, Stock
Register, Cash Book, Ledger Bills and vouchers etc. to explain the
source of cash deposited in the Mahesh Urban Cooperative Bank of
Rs.67,40,500/-. Since the assessee had not complied with the hearing
notice, the AO had proceeded ahead framing the assessment by bringing
to tax the cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained money of
the assessee.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC
contending that the assessment order is passed against the principles of
natural justice and no reasonable opportunity was given to substantiate
the source for cash deposits made. It was further contended that the
notice of hearing was issued after the lapse of hearing date. The
assessee also contended that if an opportunity was given, he was able to
substantiate the source for cash deposits made. However, the
CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to file any
documentary evidences in support of the source for cash deposits made
ITA No.277/PUN/2024
except making a submission that cash was deposited out of regular
business proceeds.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in
the present appeal.
At the outset, the present appeal is filed before this Tribunal with a
delay of 79 days. The appellant has filed a petition praying for
condonation of delay stating that the assessment order was served on the
previous Tax Consultant who failed to communicate the order to the
appellant. The appellant had come to know about the order only after
the Department sent notice for recovery of the tax demand. It is further
submitted that the details could not be filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC as
the hearing notices were not served on the appellant.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR had made no submission
controverting the submissions made in the petition.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material
on record. The ld. Sr. DR had not controverted the averments made in
the petition praying for condonation of delay. Further, keeping in view
of the well settled position of law that the date of knowledge of the order
alone has to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the limitation
period, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone
the delay of 79 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the
appeal for adjudication.
ITA No.277/PUN/2024
On merits, it is submitted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not given reasonable opportunity to substantiate the source for cash deposits made.
Therefore, the matter be remanded to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal for which the ld. DR has no serious objection. From the
perusal of the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, it is not clear, whether reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to substantiate the source for cash
deposits made during the demonetization period. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remission to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal of appeal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the
appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for
statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 15th day of May, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 15th May, 2024 Satish
ITA No.277/PUN/2024
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune