ANNASAHEB RAMESH CHHAGANLAL AJMERA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,DHULE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, DHULE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 09.01.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a society and no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed. Based on the information contained in NMS data/AIR, that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.18,38,000/- in savings bank
2 ITA No.472/PUN/2024
account maintained with IDBI bank, Dhule Branch and time deposit of
Rs.8,36,610/-, the AO formed opinion that income escaped assessment
of tax, accordingly issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 23.03.2018. The
Appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 or notice u/s.142(1)
of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO had proceeded to make
assessment by treating the said deposits as unexplained money u/s.69A
of the Act vide order dated 03.12.2018.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC
who vide impugned order deleted the addition of time deposit of
Rs.8,36,610/- accepting the explanation of the assessee that no fresh
deposits were made during the year. However, the CIT(A)/NFAC had
confirmed the action of the AO by holding that appellant could not
explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.18,38,000/- made with the
saving bank account maintained with IDBI, Dhule Branch.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in
the present appeal.
Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
On mere perusal of para 5.3 of the impugned order, it is evident that the
appellant had filed explanation in support of cash deposit of
Rs.18,38,000/-. Without taking into consideration the explanation filed
by the appellant, the CIT(A)/NFAC merely confirmed the addition by
ITA No.472/PUN/2024
holding that the appellant had failed to explain the source of cash deposit
before the Assessing Officer. The approach adopted by the
CIT(A)/NFAC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, I deem
it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC to
adjudicate the issue in appeal by dealing with the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant. Needless to say, the CIT(A)/NFAC shall afford
reasonable opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for
statistical purpose. Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2024.
/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 25th April, 2024. Satish
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
