ACIT Vs Ravi Lumba (ITAT Dehradun)
No Rule 46A Violation Where AO Fails to Respond to Remand; Cash Deposits Explained from Sales
The Dehradun Bench (DB) of the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2017-18 and upheld the relief granted by the CIT(A). The case arose from an ex parte assessment under section 144, where substantial cash deposits during the demonetisation period and stamp-duty related payments were added as unexplained. Before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished detailed explanations supported by audited financials, bank records and transaction-wise details, demonstrating that the cash deposits were sourced from recorded cash sales and sale proceeds of flats.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s contention of violation of Rule 46A, noting that the CIT(A) had in fact called for a remand report, but the Assessing Officer failed to respond despite repeated opportunities. In such circumstances, the AO could not later allege denial of opportunity. On merits, considering the accepted turnover of over ₹3.73 crore and the linkage of deposits with business receipts, the Tribunal held that the cash deposits stood satisfactorily explained. Finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s detailed factual findings, the ITAT confirmed the deletion of additions and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DEHRADUN
