NILESHKUMAR SHANTILAL PATEL,FURSADPURA vs. ITO WARD 3, NADIAD, NADIAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 855/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a farmer, deposited Rs. 12,12,000 in cash into various bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization by a farmer from agricultural income are unexplained income. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 271AAC,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 05-12- 2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “1 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL)-INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO.

2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDTITION OF R5 12,12,000 BEING AGGREGATED OF CASH DEPOSITED IN VARIOUS BANKS DURING DEMONETIZATION PERIOD WHILE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE Page No. Nileshkumar Shantilal Patel vs. ITO ACT MERELY ON SURMISES AND ASSUMPTIONS AND WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF FACTS OF THE APPELANT'S CASE AND NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY HIM. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE FILED, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 12,12,000/- REQUIRES TO BE DELETED.

3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A FARMER AND HIS SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM SALE OF MILK AND AGRICULTURE INCOME AND THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF AGGREGATING TO RS. 12,12,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTS AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF MILK AND AGRICULTURE INCOME AS EVIDENT FROM EVIDENCE FILED. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION THUS BEING WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF FACTS OF THE CASE IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW AND REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 4 THE LD. AO HAS ALSO ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAC OF THE ACT AND APPLYING THE SPECIAL RATE OF TAX AS PER SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. YOUR APPELLANT CREAVES, LEAVE, TO ADD AND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF FINAL HEARING.”

3.

The notice u/s. 142(1) issued on 12-03-2018 calling the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of income in respect of which the assessee is assessable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2017-18. The assessee failed to furnish return of income either u/s. 139 and failed to file any response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that during phase of online verification under operation clean money, the assessee has aggregated the deposited money in cash of Rs. 12,12,000/- in his bank account with HDFC bank Rs. 8,63,000/-, HDFC, Kapadwanj branch Rs. 97,500/- and Dena Bank Rs. 2,51,500/- during the demonetization period i.e. 9th November, 2016, 31st December, 2016. The assessee filed response to the show cause notices and after taking cognizance for the same, the Assessing Officer observed that the deposit during demonetization period of Rs. 12,12,000/- should be treated as unexplained money deposited in bank

Page No. Nileshkumar Shantilal Patel vs. ITO from undisclosed sources u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act and thus made addition of Rs. 12,48,878/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee being agriculturist was not very much aware of the show cause notice issued by the CIT(A) and therefore the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and therefore the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for appropriate adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee on merit.

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) without taking cognizance of the submissions and the details filed by the assessee has simply passed ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case and therefore it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee therein on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be Page No. Nileshkumar Shantilal Patel vs. ITO given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →