ARUNBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

ITA 1936/AHD/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Arunbhai Chhaganbhai Patel against the order of the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The primary issues in the appeal include the dismissal of the initial appeal as non-est without adjudication on merits, incorrect assessment of the appellant's status as Resident India, and erroneous addition of Rs.1,17,00,000 as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, the CIT (A) was accused of not considering the TDS already deducted under Section 194A. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given a fair opportunity to present his case, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470480 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MALARKODI R.
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRAJ SHAH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 148; 144; 194A; 133(6); 69A; 139

Judgement Text

"ITA No.1936/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arunbhai Chhaganbhai Patel vs. ITO Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1936/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arunbhai Chhaganbhai Patel, 62, Patel Falia Sarar, Sarar B.O. Sarar, Vadodara – 391 243. [PAN – BHDPP 9705 N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(2)(1), Vadodara. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Niraj Shah, AR Revenue by Ms. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 11.09.2024, passed by the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. First Ground of Appeal The ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as non-est without adjudication on merits. 2. Second Ground of Appeal The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in assessing the status of the appellant as Resident India. 3. Third Ground of Appeal ITA No.1936/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arunbhai Chhaganbhai Patel vs. ITO Page 2 of 3 The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in laws ion making addition of Rs.1,17,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Fourth Ground of Appeal The CIT(A) has erred on facts in determining the tax liability without giving effect of the TDS already deducted under Section 194A as mentioned in 26AS amounting to Rs.43,263/-.” 3. As per the information in the case of the assessee in accordance with Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT it was found that the assessee has not filed any return of income and has carried out various transactions as per the details. Subsequently notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 16.02.2023 but the assessee has not filed return of income under Section 139 of the Act as well as in respect of notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Various statutory notices were also issued but the same was not complied. Notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was sent to the concerned Bank to provide Bank statement. The Bank provided the same statement which was partly replied. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has withdrawn Rs.10,50,000/- and quantum of exact withdrawal was not determinable. The Assessing Officer inferred that the assessee has deposited Rs.1,17,00,000/- and failed to discharge his onus to satisfy the taxability of cash deposit during the year under consideration. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,17,00,000/- in respect of variation proposed in respect of income under the head unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made observation that the TDS of amount of Rs.1,06,982/- and Rs.5,65,493/- was detected and the same was treated as addition under the head Income from Other Sources. 4. Being aggrieved by eh Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not in India when the assessment took place and there is a delay of two days in filing the present appeal as well. The delay is condoned. ITA No.1936/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arunbhai Chhaganbhai Patel vs. ITO Page 3 of 3 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order despite of the evidences filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. it is pertinent to note that the Assessment Order is passed under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Act and the assessee has not given any details to the Assessing Officer at the relevant time as he was not in India. Before the CIT(A) the assessee engaged a Consultant, but the Consultant did not respond to the notices despite giving all the evidences to the Consultant and, therefore, the CIT(A)’s order is ex-parte order. It appears that there was genuine difficulty on the part of the assessee and, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences and adjudication of the issue contested by the assessee before the CIT(A). The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 12th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 12th February, 2025 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad "