Case Law Details
Sunil Jayantilal Sachdev Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
In Sunil Jayantilal Sachdev Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reviewed an appeal concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee, an individual taxpayer, failed to file a return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO), upon discovering cash deposits made during the demonetization period in the assessee’s Axis Bank account, issued a notice under section 142(1) and directed the assessee to file a return. However, the assessee did not respond or appear before the AO, leading the AO to complete the assessment under “Best Judgement Assessment” (section 144), treating the cash deposits of Rs. 37,12,324 as unexplained income.
The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s action but directed the AO to correct the figure of the cash deposits. The taxpayer, dissatisfied with the decision, appealed to the ITAT. The counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee had submitted a detailed explanation regarding the source of the deposits, but the NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre) had failed to consider these submissions before confirming the AO’s action. The ITAT agreed that the submissions and evidence had not been properly examined. Consequently, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to consider the evidence submitted by the taxpayer and provide a reasonable opportunity for the taxpayer to present their case. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with a focus on ensuring a proper review of the evidence.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30/08/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, had not filed his return of income for the A.Y under consideration u/s 139 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer on receipt of information that the appellant had made cash deposits in the Bank Account maintained with AXIS Bank during the demonetization period, issued notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and calling upon the appellant to file return of income. The appellant neither complied with the notices nor appeared before the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the Assessing Officer was constrained to complete the ”Best Judgement Assessment” u/s 144, by bringing to tax cash deposits as unexplained income of Rs.37,12,324/-.
3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) who, vide impugned order, while confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, however, directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the correct figure of the cash deposits. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer.
4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed detailed explanation as to the source of the cash deposits into AXIS Bank and the learned NFAC without adverting to the submissions and evidences submitted by the assessee merely confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidence and de novo assessment for which the learned DR has no serious objection. Hence, I set aside the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences filed by the assessee before the learned CIT (A) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th November, 2024.
Author Bio
