Gourav Chand Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A), NFAC sustaining addition of ₹50.45 lakh towards cash deposits and restored the entire matter to the file of the AO. The Tribunal noted that though the AO had issued notices u/s 142(1), the assessment was completed in undue haste within a short span of about two months, without granting reasonable and effective opportunity to the Assessee to explain cash deposits, capital introduction and personal cash utilisation, including demonetisation-period deposits. The Tribunal also accepted the grievance that CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording proper opportunity, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Holding that adequate opportunity is a sine qua non for valid assessment, the ITAT directed fresh adjudication after granting due hearing, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [herein after referred as “CIT(A)”] dated 14.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18 in sustaining the additions made by the AO in respect of cash deposits. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-
“1. That the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC Delhi has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,45,000/- account of cash deposit in bank account during the year, without appreciating the fact that there was sufficient cash available in the business including the cash withdrawals and cash sales made by assessee Rs. 5410427
2. That the Ld CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining the addition against the cash deposit only on the basis of surmises and conjectures without finding any fault in the books of assessee.
3. That Ld. CITEA), NFAC Delhi has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining the addition on account of cash deposit in the following bank accounts: i. Rs. 36,000/- in Bank of India loan account ending with 0143, ii. Rs. 1,05,500/-in Bank of India loan account ending with 0106. iii. Rs. 63,000/-in Canara Bank account ending with 4132.
4. That the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi is bad in law and required to be quashed as no reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided and thereby violating the Principles of Natural Justice.
5. That the above grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.”
2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the NFAC, Delhi passed order sustaining the additions without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessment was also completed by the AO without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.
