ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards entire cash deposits during demonetization period by passing ex-parte order due to non-compliance by assessee without examining on merits unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO for fresh examination.
The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 03-07-2015 determining total income of Rs. 11,70,590/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings initiated and order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B was passed on 28-032022 by accepting the returned income.
The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any reply.
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 36,48,000/- and credit entries of Rs. 21,93,269/-. AO observed that inspite of repeated reminders, assessee failed to submit the reply.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption u/s. 11(1)(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act duly admissible to Rajkot Urban Development Authority (RUDA) since the activities were not commercial in nature.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit set aside as no additions made in the hands of investors confirms genuineness of investor and hence investment cannot be stated as bogus in hands of company.
During the impugned year, noting the fact that the assessee had deposited cash during demonetization period from 8th November 2016 to 30th December 2016 of Rs.4,12,67,000/-, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Rule 2BBB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was introduced only from AY 2015-16 and the same is not applicable for AY 2014-15. Thus denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) erred in upholding addition made by AO without considering the additional evidence. Such failure to admit and evaluate the additional evidence constitutes a violation of natural justice. Thus, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad restored the matter back to the file of CIT(A) after imposing cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for negligence in diligently prosecuting the appeal before CIT(A). It is directed that amount is to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
