DAXABEN KANTIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 792/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 January 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case on merits, as the previous order was passed without a proper hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 1,44,74,932 made under Section 69A for cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee claims the source of these deposits is explainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The core issue is the explainability of cash deposits made during demonetization.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Dhrinal Shah C.A. & Shri B. K. Patel
For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 11.01.2024Pronounced: 17.01.2024

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short “NFAC”), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055144480(1) vide order dated 16.08.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of RS. 1,44,74,932 being cash deposits under Section 69A in as much as the source of the amount

Daxaben Kantibhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18 - 2 - deposited is explainable and that the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without appreciating the facts of the case.” 3. The brief issue for consideration before us is the addition of Rs. 1.44 crores being cash deposits under Section 69A of the Act, as according to the Department, the assessee was unable to explain the source of deposits made in the bank account during the demonetization period.

4.

Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order had been passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), without giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present the case on merits. It was submitted that the notices received by the assessee could not be sent to the consultant, on account of oversight and also in absence of proper understanding of taxation laws. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits. Accordingly, if given an opportunity of hearing, the assessee would duly and promptly respond to all the notices of hearing and the assessee is in a position to explain the source of deposits made in the bank account during the demonetization period.

5.

On going to the facts of the instant case, in interest of justice, we are hereby restoring the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present it’s case on merits. Further, the assessee is also directed to promptly and diligently to comply with the notices of hearing, and in absence of any further non-absence on the part of the assessee, Ld.

Daxaben Kantibhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18 - 3 - CIT(Appeals) would to be at liberty to pass order on the basis of material available on record, in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 17/01/2024

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →