Birju Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Ex-Parte 144 Order & 115BBE Addition Set Aside- Demonetisation Cash Deposit Addition Remanded—ITAT Patna Gives Assessee One Final Chance
Assessee, engaged in jewellery & mobile business, filed ROI declaring ₹5,24,260. Case was selected under CASS. Due to non-compliance to statutory notices, AO completed ex-parte assessment u/s 144, treated cash deposits of ₹49,80,700 made during demonetisation as unexplained u/s 68, taxed it @ 60% u/s 115BBE & assessed income at ₹55,04,960.
Before CIT(A), despite four hearing notices, Assessee failed to furnish books, cash book or supporting documents; only one adjournment request was filed. CIT(A) upheld AO’s order, holding that source of cash deposits was not explained & no evidence was produced even during appellate proceedings.
Before Tribunal, Assessee sought condonation of delay of 294 days citing serious health issues, which ITAT condoned. AR submitted that deposits were from business receipts & debtor collections; cash book & supporting documents were now available; AO & CIT(A) had not provided a meaningful opportunity; CIT(A) could have remanded matter u/s 251(1)(a) but did not do so.
Tribunal held that since Assessee claims to possess cash book & supporting evidence, interest of justice requires giving one proper opportunity. ITAT set aside CIT(A)’s order & restored matter to AO to reframe assessment de novo after giving adequate opportunity to Assessee to produce cash book & substantiate source of cash deposits.
