Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer added unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1,21,14,400/- to the assessee's total income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition as the assessee failed to provide an explanation. The assessee claimed the cash was collected from selling products on behalf of P.M. Agencies and deposited in her bank accounts.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Can the case be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication?
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.
CIT(A), New Delhi dated 06.07.2023 pertaining to A.Y 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made
Page 1 of 4 cash deposits of Rs.1,21,14,400/- in two bank accounts maintained in Andhra Bank and ICICI Bank. The assessee did not furnish any explanation about the nature and source of the above cash deposits. In the order u/s 143(3) dated 19.12.2018, the Assessing Officer added unexplained cash deposit of Rs.1,21,14,400/- to the total income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who upheld the additions on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any explanation regarding the nature and source of cash deposited in the bank account during assessment or appeal proceedings.
Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee was looking after door to door campaign for selling Hindustan Uniliver products on behalf of P M. Agencies (Wholesales Distributors in Delhi). The ld AR furnished a certificate from P M Agencies to that effect and to state that the assessee was authorized for booking orders from vendors, collection of cash and cheques from the parties the cash collected by her was deposited in her bank accounts in Pitampura near her house in Andhra Bank & ICICI Bank. The payments were made to vendors through RTGS & funds were transferred to P. M.
Agencies from her bank accounts. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the same can be verified from the bank statement of Page 2 of 4 both banks, the cash withdrawal from Andhra Bank Rs. 9,01,000 and Rs. 93,00,000/- from ICICI Bank were also utilized in cash deposits.
The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessment has been made ex parte by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) has followed suit. It was, therefore, prayed for restoring the matter to the ld. CIT(A).
Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and did not make any serious objection.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities. allowed for statistical purposes. Page 3 of 4 Order pronounced in open court on 21.08.2025.