CHAMPALAL MANGILAL JAIN,NANDURBAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-N DHULE, DHULE

ITA 422/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Champalal Mangilal Jain, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 but was found to have deposited a substantial amount of cash in his bank account. The Income Tax Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequently made a best judgment assessment under section 144 read with section 147, adding the cash deposit as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted the absence of participation from the assessee in earlier proceedings and decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination after allowing the assessee an opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652943 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.422/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Champalal Mangilal Jain, Hat Darwaja, Main Road, Nandurbar – 425 412 Maharashtra PAN : AGCPJ2920Q Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-N, Dhule Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 09.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out Assessment Order dated 11.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. 2. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, assessee vide letter dated 05.06.2025 sought adjournment. The said letter seeking adjournment was received by the Registry only after the conclusion of hearing. However, with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of impugned orders, we find that there was no participation by the assessee in Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.06.2025 ITA No.422/PUN/2025 Champalal Mangilal Jain 2 the proceedings before the lower authorities and therefore we proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Brief facts emanating from the record are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from commodity trading but did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information available that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.80,82,850/- in the savings bank account, notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee. Statutory notices u/s.142(1) were issued to the assessee but there was no compliance from the side of assessee. In the circumstances, ld. Assessing concluded the best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act making addition of said cash deposit as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the impugned order. 5. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. On perusal of the record, we find that there was no compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as ld.CIT(A) which led to passing of exparte orders. Before us, assessee vide Grounds of appeal No.8 and 9 stated that rather than making addition for the total cash deposit the authorities should have computed the income calling for the bank statements, cash withdrawals from the same bank account. Relevant grounds are reproduced below : “8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon.CIT(Appeals), NFAC Delhi is not justified in confirming and upholding the addition of Rs. 80,82,850/- on account of unexplained money when there is no restriction as to how much cash should be held ITA No.422/PUN/2025 Champalal Mangilal Jain 3 by a person with him and also when the source of the amount has been properly explained The addition may please be deleted. Relevant Section 69A, 144 rws 147 Issue : Cash out of earlier years retained savings and source explainable, no restriction on cash holding. Without prejudice to the above 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon.CIT(Appeals), NFAC Delhi is not justified in confirming and upholding the addition of Rs. 80,82,850/- under section 69A when it was open to compute reasonable income after calling bank statement from relevant bank and considering cash deposited out of earlier cash withdrawals from same bank account. The addition may please be deleted and the case may be referred back to file of learned AO to recompute the income and make reasonable additions after giving reasonable opportunity to appellant to explain the source of cash deposits. Relevant Section 69A and 144 rws 147 Issue :Failure to compute reasonable income u/s. 144 and opportunity to appellant to explain.” Through these grounds assessee has prayed for remitting the issue to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for re- computation after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. Since assessee has not participated in the proceedings before Ld. AO and ld.CIT(A) and has not produced any documents to substantiate the allegation of cash deposit, we in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to give one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting the issue back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to produce adduce evidence/documents in his support. Ld.CIT(A) shall call for a remand report (if necessary) from the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and after considering the submissions of assessee pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is ITA No.422/PUN/2025 Champalal Mangilal Jain 4 directed to provide its updated email address and contact details to the Department to facilitate effective communication of notices through the ITBA portal. Assessee is further advised to exercise due diligence and avoid seeking adjournments except for bonafide and justifiable reasons. In this view of the matter, impugned order is hereby set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 16th day of June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 16th June, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "