Kamleshkumar Harihai Patel Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Ahmedabad ITAT: Ex-Parte CIT(A) Order Set Aside – ₹35.50 Lakh Demonetisation Cash Deposit, Reassessment Limitation and Double Taxation Pleas Restored for De Novo Adjudication
The assessee challenged an ex-parte appellate order confirming reassessment and various additions. A significant jurisdictional ground was that the reassessment notice dated 29.03.2024 for AY 2017-18 was allegedly time-barred, since the disputed demonetisation cash deposit was only ₹35.50 lakh, i.e. below the ₹50 lakh threshold.
The AO had reopened the assessment based on information regarding alleged high-value transactions of ₹2.31 crore and ultimately assessed income at ₹80.33 lakh. The additions included ₹35.50 lakh towards demonetisation cash deposits, ₹4.49 lakh of Bardan expenses, ₹11.34 lakh of CIPC fogging expenses and ₹12.75 lakh relating to purchases.
On the ₹35.50 lakh addition, the assessee specifically contended that the cash deposits represented business sales already offered to tax, and therefore treating the same amount again as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE resulted in double taxation.
The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal because the assessee failed to comply with several opportunities and did not furnish the required evidence. Before the ITAT, Senior Counsel undertook that, if another opportunity was granted, complete details and supporting evidence would be furnished.
The ITAT, in the interest of justice, remanded the entire matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all supporting material and cooperate without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Importantly, the Tribunal has not decided on merits either the ₹50-lakh reassessment limitation issue or the contention that treating already-recorded sales as unexplained cash deposits amounts to double taxation. Both issues remain open for adjudication by the CIT(A).
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal:-
“1. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in in dismissing the appeal by passing the ex-parte order despite the appellant having sought adjournment during the appellate proceedings, which was not duly considered, thereby resulting in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, in as much as notice u/s 148A(b) was issued despite the Ld AO has no information suggesting escapement of income and reopening is carried out for fishing and rowing inquiries and order u/s 148A(d) has been passed without considering submission of Assessee and therefore it is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, in as much as the proceedings are time barred since cash deposited in demonetisation is Rs 35,50,500/- i.e does not exceed Rs 50,00,000/-
4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,50,500/- u/s 69A on account of cash deposits treating the same as unexplained and taxing the same u/s 115BBE, without appreciating the facts and evidences of the case and disregarding the submission of the assessee that the same has been offered to tax as Sales and therefore taxing the same again has resulted in to double taxation.
5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 4,48,876/- towards Bardan expenses without proper justification.
6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 11,34,001/-towards CIPC Fogging expenses on an arbitrary basis.
7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 12,75,000/- u/s 40A(3).”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual, filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 total income of Rs. 16,26,020/-. Information was available that during FY 2016-17, appellant carried out high value suspicious transactions of Rs. 2,31,75,000/- in his bank account held with ICICI Bank with account No.084905004259 during the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18. On basis of the information, case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2024. Statutory notices were issued on various dates. Appellant responded to some notices. After examining facts of the case and taking on record submissions of the appellant, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 of the Act assessing total income at Rs.80,33,897/- after making following additions:
(i) Addition of Rs. 35,50,000/- holding that the amount out of total cash deposits during demonetization were not business receipts,
(ii) Addition of Rs. 4,48,876/-being unverified Bardan Expense (sacks),
(iii) Addition of Rs. 11,34,001/- being excess claim of expense towards CIPC Fogging Expenses, and (iv) Addition of Rs. 12,75,000/-being unsubstantiated purchases.
4. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the learned CIT(A) has recorded in the impugned order that several opportunities were given to the Assessee, however, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the Assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details/submissions/evidence to substantiate its appeal before learned CIT(A). In such circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A), on the basis of the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Before us, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliances will be made and all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Assessee shall submit all relevant materials and supporting documents before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of its grounds and shall comply with the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced on 14.08.2026.
