ATUL DAHYABHAI PATEL,ROYAL GARDEN, ADAJAN, SURAT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(6), ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN, SURAT

ITA 215/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Atul Dahyabhai Patel, the appellant, who contested the additions made to his income by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat, which were upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The additions were primarily due to unexplained cash deposits totaling Rs.31,37,760 in various bank accounts linked to the assessee. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) upheld the additions citing lack of sufficient explanation from the assessee regarding the source of these deposits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been given adequate opportunity to present his case and thus remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination of the new evidence provided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 106862 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: P. M. JAGASHETH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत Ɋायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.215/SRT/2024 (AY 2016-17) (Hearing in Physical Court) Atul Dahyabhai Patel 5 Royal Garden, New Honey Park Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 [PAN No: ACKPP 5328 G] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ /Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 26.02.2024 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 25.10.2024 उद ्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of pronouncement 04.11.2024 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.12.2023 for assessment year 2016-17, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.11.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A)is bad in law, against the facts, illegal, and needs to be quashed. The entire additions made in total income needs to be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO erred by treating entire cash deposited of Rs.31,37,760/- into bank account as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT(A) also erred by upholding the additions without considering the facts ITA No.215/SRT/2024 (A.Y 16-17) Atul D Patel 2 of the case and available cash balance and other details. Therefore, the additions made in total income needs to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO and CIT(A) both erred by passing ex parte order. Therefore, the additions made in total income without giving fair opportunity is bad in law and therefore, the additions needs to be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the additions be reduced on merits. 5. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal hereunto taken before.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual and filed his return of income for assessment year 2016-17 declaring income of Rs.10,04,030/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of cash deposits. During assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that during the financial year under consideration, the assessee has made huge cash deposit in HDFC Bank. The Assessing Officer served various notices to the assessee to substantiate and explained source of cash deposits. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite issuing various notices, assessee has not furnished any detail regarding such deposits. Notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the HDFC Bank. In response to notice issued under section 133(6), the bank of the assessee disclosed the total cash deposit of Rs.31,37,760/-. The Assessing Officer in absence of any details from assessee treated the entire cash amount as unexplained income. 3. On appeal before Ld.CIT(A), the addition was upheld. The Ld.CIT(A) upholding the addition for want of submission. The Ld. CIT(A) in para-4 of his appellate order recorded that three show cause notices were issued to ITA No.215/SRT/2024 (A.Y 16-17) Atul D Patel 3 assessee on which assessee failed to file any response. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior-Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue carefully. The Ld.AR for the assessee submits Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) has not given reasonable opportunities of being heard to assessee. The Assessing Officer added entire cash deposits in six bank accounts in HDFC Bank. Out of which two bank accounts relates to assessee himself; one bank account in joint bank account with minor son; one bank account in the name of daughter and other in the name of his wife, Mukta Atul Patel. The assessee also holding huge agricultural land. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that total cash deposit in all bank accounts only Rs.15,93,000/- thus, the Assessing Officer made addition without any basis. The ld AR of the assessee submits that entire addition may be deleted or in order to avoid litigation with the revenue, some ad-hock addition may be sustained. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee has not furnished any details either before Assessing Officer nor before Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in absence of any submission, the lower authorities have no option but to make addition on the basis of enquired conducted by bankers of assessee. The assessee has filed new evidence which was not filed before lower authorities. The lower authorities have not verified such evidences. In ITA No.215/SRT/2024 (A.Y 16-17) Atul D Patel 4 case, such evidence is accepted, the evidence required verification at the end of assessing officer. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) passed their respective orders in absence of proper compliance on the part of assessee. Now, before me, Ld. AR for the assessee has filed numerous evidence showing that various bank accounts in the name of assessee or in the name of his family-members, minor son, daughter or his wife, wherein assessee is joint account holder. The Ld. AR for the assessee has not filed any application for filing additional evidence before Tribunal. In absence of examination of such evidence by lower authorities, I did not consider it proper to consider and to allow any relief to assessee, on the basis of such evidence which is filed for the first time before Tribunal, that too without seeking any permissions as per Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules-1963. Though, all such evidences are relevant for real determination of issue before me. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, such evidences are taken on record and matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Office to consider such evidence and pass order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the Assessing Officer shall grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reason and to furnish all the details and his submissions and evidences on various grounds of appeal raised, as soon as possible, without ITA No.215/SRT/2024 (A.Y 16-17) Atul D Patel 5 any further delay. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 4th November, 2024. Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) [Ɋाियक सद˟ JUDICIAL MEMBER] सूरत /Surat, Dated: 04/11/2024 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant  Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT  आयकर आयुÈत (अपील)/ The CIT(A)  ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT  गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, सूरत Date Initial Draft order was dictated by author JM) 04/11/2024 Draft placed before author 04/11/2024 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 04/11/2024 Kept for pronouncement on,, 04/11/2024 File sent to the Bench Clerk 05/11/2024 Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. Date of dispatch of Order. Draft dictation sheets are attached "