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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 472/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 April 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the explanation provided by the assessee for the cash deposit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a society, did not file a regular return of income. Based on information of cash deposits, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A)/NFAC deleted the addition for time deposits but confirmed the addition for cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC properly adjudicated the appeal by failing to consider the assessee's explanation for cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi, Shri Somnath M. Wajale
Hearing: 25.04.2024Pronounced: 25.04.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

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 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.

3.

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.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

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 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.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2024.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →