Case Law Details
Mahavir Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi)
ITAT Ranchi remanded the matter regarding addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act back to the file of CIT(A) since paper books was not produced before AO or CIT(A).
Facts- The information was received by the AO that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.91,55,652/- during the whole year including Rs. 11,44,500/- deposited during demonetization period i.e., from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 in his bank account but no return of income was filed by the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee from time to time but no one appeared in response to that. It is also noted in the assessment order that the assessee did not appear because of their illness but also did not make any arrangement to represent its case before the AO to explain the source of cash deposits. The AO, thus, added a sum of Rs.Rs.89,49,138/- u/s 69A of the Act.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that the details given in the paper book submitted as above was not produced either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, it is proper to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case on merit by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the relevant details filed by him.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RANCHI
This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi[hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. PCIT”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18, dated 17.11.2022.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the assessment order is illegal, arbitrary and is made out of surmises and conjecture.”
2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in adding the entire bank deposits as income and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the same.
3. That the Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in not applying Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee is a dealer of medicines and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not guiding the Ld. Assessing Officer.
4. The Ld Assessing Officer is not justified in not making a fair estimation of profit on the gross receipts and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not correcting the mistakes committed by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
5. The Ld Assessing Officer is not justified in imposing Section 115 BBE on the receipts of the Assessee and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the same.
6. That the Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in not applying the peak credit theory on the case of the assessee and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not guiding the Assessing Officer.
7. The Ld Assessing Officer is not justified in imposing section115 BBE on the genuine business receipts received in bankand the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is notjustified in not correcting the same.
8. That Ld. Assessing officer is not justified in not giving due credits of opening cash, realization of sundry debtors and sale of opening stock in hand.
9. The Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in not properly calculating the interest under section 234.
10. That the other and further grounds shall be urged at the time of hearing.”
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the information was received by the AO from AIMS that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.91,55,652/- during the whole year including Rs. 11,44,500/- deposited during demonetization period i.e., from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 in his bank account No. 525327110000001 maintained in Dandidih, Giridih branch of Bank of India but no return of income was filed by the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee from time to time but no one appeared in response to that. It is also noted in the assessment order that the assessee did not appear because of their illness but also did not make any arrangement to represent its case before the AO to explain the source of cash deposits. The AO, thus, added a sum of Rs.Rs.89,49,138/- u/s 69A of the Act.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is not interested in explaining its case before him by not making any compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the instant appeal has been filed. During the appellate proceedings before us, the Ld. AR submitted a paper book in which all the details along with explanation of each and every entry has been given and according to him everything is explained and there is no reason to make any addition against the assessee.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the Ld. AR and it is found that the details given in the paper book submitted as above was not produced either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, it is proper to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case on merit by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the relevant details filed by him.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29.11.2024.
Author Bio
