Arvind Mevalal Panchal Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Remands Section 69A Addition Because Entire Bank Credits Cannot Be Treated as Income Without Examination; Different Email for Final Notice Not Enough to Explain Prior Defaults, Rules ITAT Ahmedabad; ₹10,000 Cost Imposed Because Assessee Failed to Comply Despite Multiple Opportunities
The assessee filed his return for AY 2018-19 declaring income of ₹2,98,810 and disclosed turnover of ₹34,33,781 with profit offered under Section 44AD. Subsequently, it was found that cash deposits of ₹1,37,54,800 had been made in the assessee’s bank account, resulting in an alleged unaccounted turnover difference of ₹1,00,55,112. The case was reopened under Section 148, and the assessment was completed under Sections 147 read with 144, determining total income at ₹1,40,53,610 and making an addition of ₹1,37,54,800 as unexplained money under Section 69A.
The assessee’s appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that no effective compliance could be made before the CIT(A) because notices were sent to a different email address than the one mentioned in Form 35. The assessee sought another opportunity to present the case on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted four opportunities for compliance. The assessee sought adjournments on two occasions and failed to comply on the remaining occasions. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s claim of not receiving notices could not be accepted because the assessee was aware of the appellate proceedings and had already sought adjournments earlier. It further observed that the email address used for the final notice was available in the Income Tax Department’s database and had been provided by the assessee himself. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be absolved of earlier non-compliance merely because the last notice was sent to a different email address.
