Asrafkhan Kalndrkhan Pathan Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CA took complete responsibility for non-compliance with notices hence, additional evidences submitted at appellate stage needs verification and examination by AO. Thus, matter remanded back.
Facts- The assessee, a senior citizen regularly assessed to tax. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for verifying the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period.
A notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO, requiring the assessee to produce details and documents supporting the income returned. Subsequently, the AO issued multiple notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling for specific details about the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee did not provide sufficient evidence or explanations in response to these notices. As a result, the AO made the following additions in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21/12/2019. Rs.17,97,500/- was added as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68, representing cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Rs.11,74,780/- was disallowed as unexplained agricultural income u/s. 68 of the Act. Rs.32,67,800/-was added as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, representing the purchase of a vehicle, including registration fees and insurance.
