Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Rameshkumar Income Tax Officer, Gordhanji Gelot Ward-4 Now Ward-1, 223, Malgadh Vs Palanpur Deesa, Gujarat-385540 PAN: AHSPG1809Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 12-03-2024 Date of pronouncement : 15-03-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. Page No 2 Rameshkumar Gordhanji Gelot vs. ITO
The registry has noted that there is a delay of 8 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. The assessee submitted that he is farmer living in interior village: Malgadh, Deesa, Palanpur and uneducated person and so not familiar with the emails and online system. Only on receipt of penalty notice from the department, he came to know about the exparte appellate order, thereby he filed the appeal immediately with a delay of 8 days and humbly pleaded to condone the delay. The Ld. S.R. D.R. appearing for the Revenue has no objection in condoning the delay. Thus the 8 days delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of potatoes. For the Asst. Year 2017-18, the assessee has not filed his Return of Income. Hence a notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on various dates. The Assessing Officer also called for information from Axis Bank, Ahmedabad, Deesa Branch by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and found that the cash deposits by the assessee for the whole year as well as during demonetization period as follows:
Sr. Name of the Bank & Account No. Amount Amount No. Branch deposited deposited during the during the whole demonetiz year ation period 1. Axis Bank, Ahmedabad 911010012926664 891900 RAC 2. Axis Bank, Deesa 916060015734688 1611500 3. Axis Bank, Deesa 911010012926664 630200 82200 4. Axis Bank, Deesa 913030040388287 402000 205000 5. Axis Bank, Deesa 4.51457E+15 20000 20000 6. Axis Bank, Ahmedabad 916060015734688 16,11,500 16,11,500 RAC 7. Axis Bank, Ahmedabad LNR000301268146 88520 RAC 8. Axis Bank, Ahmedabad 913030040388287 402000 Page No 3 Rameshkumar Gordhanji Gelot vs. ITO RAC 9. Axis Bank, Deesa 916060015734688 25,03,400 10. Axis Bank, Ahmedabad 914020021797048 270200 RAC 11. Axis Bank, Deesa 911010012926664 25,03,400 Total 10934620 1918700
During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed copy of the Return of Income along with computation of income, copy of tax audit report, bank statements for various bank accounts held by the assessee, cash book, purchase-sales register, etc., before the Assessing Officer for verification. The assessee submitted that due to miscommunication with the earlier staff of the assessee, Return of Income as well as Audited accounts were remained not uploaded online.
4.1. However during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted whole books of accounts along with details of various bank accounts and also explained the cash deposited by Specified Bank Notes from sale proceeds of potatoes up to 08.11.2019. However the above explanation was not accepted by the A.O. and made an addition of Rs.1,09,34,620/- as the unexplained cash deposits in the hands of the assessee during demonetization period and demanded tax thereon. Though the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that assessment as exparte assessment order.
Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who offered four opportunities of hearing to the assessee. However when the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices Page No 4 Rameshkumar Gordhanji Gelot vs. ITO passed an exparte appellate order confirming the demand raised by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing ex-parte.
2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in confirming the addition of Rs.1,09,34,620/- u/s. 68 of the Act.
7. Ld. Counsel Mr. Chetan Agarwal appearing for the assessee submitted before us, the Assessing Officer has not furnished the bank details obtained by him by issuing a notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act from various branches of Axis Bank. Even the bank details reproduced in the assessment order there are double entries of the amount of Rs.4,02,000/- in Axis Bank Account No. 913030040388287 and Rs.16,11,500/- in Account No. 916060015734688 and also Rs.25,03,400/- is reflecting in two accounts of Axis Bank. Whereas the assessee has duly explained the cash deposit of Rs.19,58,700/- during demonetization period. However the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,09,34,620/- without assigning proper reasons and the same is liable to be deleted.
8. Per contra Ld. Sr. DR Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the Lower Authorities and in the absence of any details, the additions made by the Assessing Officer does not require any interference.
Page No 5 Rameshkumar Gordhanji Gelot vs. ITO
We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is seen from the various bank accounts reproduced by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order, there are double entries of Rs.4,02,000/- and Rs.16,11,500/- with the same bank account no. namely 913030040388287and 916060015734688. There is also double entries of Rs.25,03,400/- in two bank accounts. Thus the Assessing Officer has not justified in making the addition of Rs.1,09,34,620/- as the unexplained income of the assessee. Whereas the assessee claims that he made cash deposit of Rs.19,58,700/- only during demonetization period by sale of his agricultural produce namely potatoes. In the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the case to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee by furnishing the various bank account details obtained by the A.O. u/s. 133(6) of the Act and also getting explanation from the assessee and pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law. Needless to say, that the assessee should co-operate for passing fresh assessment order by producing all required details.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.