SATYA KUMAR DARBARI,LUCKNOW vs. DCITACIT-4, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 41/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that evidence relied upon by the CIT(A) was not provided to the Assessing Officer and the assessee claimed no opportunity was given for clarification. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny, but the assessee failed to comply with notices. The Assessing Officer treated cash deposits of Rs. 79,44,000/- as unexplained under Section 68 and added it to the income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming an addition of Rs. 37,80,500/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without allowing the Assessing Officer to scrutinize the evidence and without providing the assessee an opportunity for clarification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 133(6),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 272(1)(d),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, D.R

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow dated 9.1.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18, raising the following grounds of appeal:

1. Because the learned CIT (Appeals)-3 is in agreement with the appellant that bank account no 1856002101002334 in Punjab National Bank belonged to Darbari Construction Hub partnership firm having PAN no. AAKFD6219L as per the banker certificate, however addition of cash deposit of 37,80,500 was confirmed for the reason it was not clear from the banker certificate that such firm was in existence during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18.

2. Because the learned CIT (Appeals) - 3 has erred in law and on facts in summarily rejecting the version of appellant

that the said cash deposit of 37,80,500 deposited in bank account belonged to Darbari Construction Hub in the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18, therefore the addition made is unjustified, untenable and liable to be struck down as if there was any doubt such clarification could have been sought from the appellant.

2.

None has appeared for the Assessee despite issuance of Notice through RPAD, which Notice has not returned unserved. However, finding that the matter can be decided in the absence of the Assessee, we have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. CIT (D.R.) and after perusing the material on record.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income, showing a total income of Rs.19,65,010/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee, but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued show cause notice on 7.11.2019 for penalty under section 272(1)(d) read with section 274 of the Act, but there was no compliance from the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 144 of the Act dated 28.11.2019 requiring the assessee to furnish all supporting details and documents by 2.12.2019. In response to this notice too, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the Banks in which the cash deposited during the demonetization period. On the basis of the bank statement showing bank deposits aggregating to Rs.79,44,000/- (Rs.65,39,000/- during the demonetization period and Rs.14,05,000/- during the non-demonetization period), he treated this amount as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee by passing best judgment assessment order under section 144 of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). He partly allowed the appeal of the assessee confirming the addition of Rs.37,80,500/- and deleting the addition of the remaining amount of Rs.41,63,500/- out of total addition of Rs.79,44,000/-, observing that out of the total addition of Rs.79,44,000/-, some amount found to have been deposited in the bank account of other party was also added to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer, without verifying the facts. The assessee is in further appeal before us.

5.

We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. The ld. D.R. submitted that the evidence, on which the ld. CIT(A) placed reliance, was not provided to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Assessing Officer got no opportunity to scrutinize such evidence. He further submitted that the issue in dispute in the present appeal before the ITAT should be restored back to the Assessing Officer in order to enable him to scrutinize the evidence on which the assessee placed reliance during the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). Moreover, we find that in the second ground of appeal

, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) did not provide any opportunity for providing clarification in respect of the addition sustained by him.

6. In view the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de-novo. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the A.O.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/07/2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →