ANNASAHEB RAMESH CHHAGANLAL AJMERA NAGARI SAHAKARIPATSANSTHA LTD.,DHULE vs. ACIT CIRCLE, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 473/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. Following judicial consistency, the Tribunal also restored the current appeal's issue to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a credit society, appealed against an addition of Rs. 10,55,000 towards alleged unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed the deposits were from earlier cash withdrawals and explained by audited books. The CIT(A) rejected this, citing non-filing of audit report and ITR.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account are unexplained when the assessee claims they are from prior cash withdrawals supported by audited books, and whether the non-filing of an audit report and ITR affects the reliance on audited books.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 10.05.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 10.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1059620067(1), dated 11.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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

2 ITA.No.473/PUN./2024

1) “The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,55,000 towards alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account without appreciating that the sources of the said cash deposits were from cash withdrawals made on earlier occasions as duly explained out of audited books of accounts, cash book and other details furnished by the appellant credit society and hence, there was no reason to confirm the said addition on facts and in law.

2) The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the explanation regarding source of cash deposits by holding that the could not be relied upon since the appellant had not filed the audit report and ITR u/s 139(1) without appreciating that the assessee society had incurred a loss in this year and therefore, it was not liable to file ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act.

3) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 passed for A.Y.2016-17 which was reopened on same facts, the Dept, has accepted the source of cash deposits made by the appellant society on very same set of facts and therefore, there was no reason to take a contrary view while adjudicating the issue of cash deposits for A.Y.2014-15.

4) The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend any of the grounds of appeal.”

3 ITA.No.473/PUN./2024

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that this tribunal’s coordinate bench”s order dated 25.04.2024 in assessee’s appeal itself for the assessment year 2013-2014 has already restored the identical issue of unexplained cash deposits back to the learned NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication. It is made clear that the assessee’s stand all along is that the impugned cash deposits represent it’s cash receipts realised from members in regular business activity(ies) only. That being the case, I adopt judicial consistency in these identical facts and circumstances to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the NFAC for it’s 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 his case before the lower appellate authority in consequential proceedings.

Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →