Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 132/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16
Manjit Singh Model Fauji Vs. Income Tax Officer, Colony Urmar Dasuya, Ward- Dasuya, Punjab. Hoshiarpur. [PAN:-CTTPS1322P] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr.DR.
Date of Hearing 31.07.2023 03.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement
ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. NFAC, Delhi, (in brevity ‘the CIT (A)’) order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2015-16. The impugned order
was emanated from the order of the ld. NFAC, Delhi (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 147/144B of the Act.
The assessee has taken the following grounds:
I.T.A. No. 132/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16
“1. That the order passed by the fd A.O. and confirmed by the C1T(A) is against law and facts of the case.
That the A.O has wrongly made the addition of Rs. 17,44,700/- out of which CTT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.9,22,550/- and wrongly confirmed th balance amount of addition i.e Rs.8,22,150/- on account of cash deposited in the bank-account of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee files this appeal.
That the assessee requests to add or amend the grounds 'of appeal before the same is heard or disposed off.”
The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 17 days. The assessee
filed the petition for condonation of delay. The assessee explained that the delay
was due to non-communication from the counsel of assessee who left the job
and had not informed assessee about the service of appeal order. The ld. DR
had not made any objection in the issue. Accordingly, the delay for 17 days is
condoned.
When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of
record, we find that there is no power of attorney with the appeal petition. Mr.
K. Bhagat, CA for the assessee filed an adjournment petition before the bench
and mentioned that senior counsel who will attend the case is not feeling well.
The reason of adjournment is not acceptable before the bench as not properly
described and also there is no valid power of attorney. We rejected the letter of
I.T.A. No. 132/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16
adjournment and proceed to dispose of the appeal in exparte qua for assessee after hearing the ld. DR.
Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee deposited
cash in two bank accounts total amount to Rs. 17,44,700/-. The notice was
issued U/s 148 of the Act. The assessee filed the return U/s 148 of the Act and
declared turnover amount to Rs. 9,22,500/-. The profit was declared U/s 44AD
amount to Rs. 83,265/- which is @9.03% and covering the section 44AD of the
Act. The ld. AO found that the assessee is joint holder of KDR amount to Rs.
825,000/-. The total addition was confirmed amount to Rs. 17,44,700/-.
Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A)
accepted the assessee’s submission and relief was granted amount to Rs.
9,22,550/-. The addition was confirmed on balance amount to Rs. 8,22,150/-(Rs.
17,44,700/- - Rs. 9,22,550/-) by the ld. CIT(A). Being aggrieved the assessee
filed an appeal before us.
The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on order of revenue authorities.
We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in
the record. By way of schedule, we consider the order of the revenue
authorities. The paragraph 5.3 of appeal order is reproduced as below: -
“5.3 The appellant had not filed his return of income. After receipt of notice u/s 148 of the Act, he has filed his return .of income. He has shown income from business of retail business.
I.T.A. No. 132/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2015-16
The turnover has been shown at Rs. 9,22,550/-and profit has been declared at Rs. 83,265/-, which is 9.03%. The appellant has shown this profit u/s 44AD of the Act, being higher than 8%. Apart from this, the appellant has shown income from other sources of Rs. 4,29,173/-Copy of cash book filed show receipts from cash sales, or from capita account. There is substantial amount of cash deposit in both bank account and in SBI also the appellant has made a FDR for Rs.27,01,000/-. The appellant has not furnished exact details of the accounts received from his children. It is also not known as to why the children would be sending money in cash, particularly as the appellant has access to 2 bank accounts and does not reside in a remote location. In these circumstances, the claim regarding receipt of money in cash from children settled abroad is not acceptable. The appellant has shown business turnover of Rs. 9,22,550/- and entire sales have been shown in cash. Against the cash deposit of Rs. 17,44,700/- added by the AO, the amount claimed as business turnover, i.e. Rs. 9,22,550/-may be accepted. With regard to the cash amounting to balance Rs. 8,22,150/-, the explanation of the appellant is considered not acceptable. This also corresponds to the KDR amounting to Rs. 8,25,000/- made by the AO. Thus addition to the extent of Rs. 8,22,150/-is confirmed and addition of Rs.9,22,550/- is deleted. The appellant gets part relief.”
7.1 The assessee was unable to explain the investment related to KDR
amounting to Rs.8,25,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) had not rejected the cash flow of
the assessee related to cash deposit in two bank accounts. The assessee tried to
explain the amount received from the children in cash but there is no
I.T.A. No. 132/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16
explanation is called for or any investigation was done by the ld. CIT(A) during proceeding. The entire cash flow of the assessee should explain the cash deposit
in bank from which the KDR amounting to Rs.8,25,000/- was made. The
difference amount was fixed for addition amounting to Rs.8,22,150/- has no
basis in the explanation by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we remit back the
matter to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication related to investment in KDR
amounting to Rs.8,25,000/- and the balance of unexplained cash deposit
Rs.8,22,150/- which is the balancing part of the appellate order. Needless to say
the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity for this set aside proceeding.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 132/Asr/2023 is
allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order