DIVYA PRAKSH GOYAL,JALORE V. ITO, WARD-1, JALORE

ITA 25/JODH/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sh. Divya Prakash Goyal against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which sustained the addition of Rs. 11,60,000 as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal arose from an assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-1, Jalore, which was based on the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The ITAT noted the assessee's lack of response to multiple notices and opportunities provided during the assessment and appellate proceedings but decided to restore the matter to the ITO to ensure a fair opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31826 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KOTHARI; ITBA PORTAL; BY REGD. POST
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Salary income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 143(1); 251; 69A; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 25/Jodh/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Divya Prakash Goyal S/o Sayam Goyal Laxmi Nagar, Jalore. [PAN: ASZPG2978E ] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Jalore. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amit Kothari, C.A. Respondent by Sh. Rajendra Ojha, CIT Date of Hearing 22.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2024 ORDER Per:DR. S. Seethalakshmi, JM: This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 15.12.2023 [here in after “CIT(A)/NFAC”] for assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arise from the order dated 17.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”) by the ITO, Ward-1, Jalore. I.T.A. No. 25/Jodh/2024 Divya Prakash Goyal vs. ITO 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by the ld. AO which is bad in law and bad on facts. The ld. CIT(A) has failed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,60,000/- u/s 69A for alleged unexplained cash deposit. The addition so sustained bad in law. 3. The interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is bad in law and bad on facts. 43 The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. Brief fact of the case are that the return of income was electronically filed on 28.03.2018, declaring total income at Rs. 4,50,250/-. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 09.04.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly the first notice u/s. 143[2] was issued on 28.08.2018, fixing the date of hearing for. 05.09.2018. The said notice was duly served upon the assessee by ITBA portal and by Regd. Post. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) along with query letter was issued on 03.07.2019, fixing the date of hearing on or before 17.07.2019. However, no compliance was made by the assessee. Subsequently, on change of incumbent, a notice u/s. 142[1] along with a query letter was issued by the AO on 12.09.2019, fixing the date of hearing for 19.09.2019 which was duly served upon the assessee but the same also remained uncomplied with. Therefore, a reminder letter dated 16.10.2019 was issued to assessee to make the compliance I.T.A. No. 25/Jodh/2024 Divya Prakash Goyal vs. ITO 3 of notice issued u/s 142(1) of Act on or before 22.10.2019. However, the assessee has not made compliance thereof. 3.1 The Ld. AO noted that the assessee was fully non cooperative and intentionally not provided the complete information/ details as called for vide above notices. Finally, a show cause notice dated 08.11.2019 was issued to the assessee wherein the assessee was informed that in case of non- submission of reply, the case will be assessed u/s 144 of I. T. Act i.e. best judgment assessment based on the facts of the case and material available on record. Vide above show cause notice, the assessee was requested to furnish reply on or before 14.11.2019. In compliance thereof, the AR of the assessee has electronically furnished the reply dated 05.12.2019, which was examined and placed on record. 3.2 The assessee is an individual, who derives income from salary and remuneration from M/s Shree Daata Granimarno Pvt. Ltd.. As per the return of income, the assesseee has shown gross total income at Rs. 5,14,633/- and after claiming the deduction under chapter VIA, amounting to Rs. 64,433/-, the total income has been declared at Rs. 4,50,200/-. I.T.A. No. 25/Jodh/2024 Divya Prakash Goyal vs. ITO 4 3.4 As discussed supra, the case was selected for limited scrutiny mentioning the reason that \"cash deposits in bank accounts during the year\". Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, vide query letter u/s. 142[1] dated 12.09.2019, the assessee was specifically asked to furnish supporting evidences to justify the source of cash deposits of Rs. 9,60,000/- made during the demonetization period in his bank account no. 682401084862 with ICICI Band and Rs. 2,00,000/- in a/c no, 20031930000534 with HDFC Bank. 3.5 In response to the same, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished its reply dated 05.12.2019, which was examined and placed on record. The assessee stated that the he was under employment during the year under consideration and was earning salary income from Jalore Gas Service Rs. 1,80,000/-, Shemford school Rs. 1,80,000/- and also received a sum of Rs 1,20,000/- as remuneration from M/s Shree Daata Granimarmo Pvt. Ltd. As regard to the source of cash deposits made in its bank accounts during the demonetization period, the assessee furnished a cash flow statement for the period 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 which shows that as on 09.11.2016 the assessee was having total cash balance of Rs. 12,50,820/-. On perusal of cash flow statement it is noticed that as on 01.04.2016 the assessee has shown a sum of Rs. 13,02,593/- as cash in hand. Since, the assessee is a salary person and the do not maintains the books of account, therefore, he was required to furnish the I.T.A. No. 25/Jodh/2024 Divya Prakash Goyal vs. ITO 5 documentary evidences in support of his claim that as on 01.04.2016 he was having the total cash balance of Rs. 13.02.593 But, assessee failed to produce any supporting evidence in support of his claim that as on 01.04.2016, he was having the total cash balance of Rs 13,02,593/ Since, the assessee filed its of income for AY 2016-17 in form No. 4 ITR therefore him cannot be verified there from the cash balance as on 01.04.2016 as reported by assessee [then what finally done by AO] 4. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:- “5. Decision: 5.1 It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner several notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant, viz. communications dated 26.12.2020, 04.04.2021, 06.08.2021, 28.08.2021, 09.09.2022 and 08.11.2023 and delivered. 5.2 Finally on 04.12.2023 the appellant was issued following show cause notice: \".... Please refer to the above. In this regard, it is noted that you have been issued various notices from time to time, however, no response has been received from you till date. The details of such notices by this office are as under:- S No. Date of issue of notices/email Date of compliance Remarks 1. 26.12.2020 11.01.2021 No response. 2. 04.04.2021 19.04.2021 No response. 3. 06.08.2021 23.08.2021 No response. 4. 28.08.2021 13.09.2021 No response. 5. 09.09.2022 29.09.2022 No response. 6. 08.11.2023 16.11.2023 No response. 2. In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that: I.T.A. No. 25/Jodh/2024 Divya Prakash Goyal vs. ITO 6 \"The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.\" 3. In view of the above facts and legal position, you are hereby given the show cause as to why the appeal in your case be not decided on the basis of material available on record, due to continued non-compliance at your end till date. However, to meet the ends of natural justice, you are hereby given a final opportunity to make the submissions to substantiate the grounds of appeal taken by you in this appeal. If you have made any submission in this case so far (elther physically or through online mode), these may be uploaded in the ITBA, as the online portal is showing that no submission had been made by you till date in this appeal. Your reply should be furnished on or before 14.12.2023 on ITBA, failing which it will be considered that you don't want to pursue the appeal and the appeal would be decided based on the material available on record...\" However, there evidently has been no response from the appellant till date. There is no gainsaying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on his part to pursue purposefully and co-operatively the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. It clearly appears that the appellant's compliance or rather lack of it, the appellant has not even bothered to pursue this appeal in any productive manner. Hence, in view of the aforesaid total non- compliance/non prosecution of the instant appeal on the part of the appellant, the instant appeal is adjudicated and disposed off, as under, ex-parte, primarily on the basis documentation available on record. 5.3 I have perused the assessment order passed u/s 143(3), SOF & GOA. In this case the appellant was found to have deposited cash totaling Rs. 11,60,000/- in her two bank accounts with HDFC Bank during the demonetization period. The appellant was asked to explain the source of cash deposits during the assessment proceedings. The appellant furnished cash flow statement and explained the sources of cash deposits as that from her cash balance. However finding the explanation of the appellant as not satisfactory the AO eventually considered an amount of Rs.11,60,000/- as unexplained and treated it as unexplained money of the appellant under Section 69A. 5.4 During the course of appellate proceedings, sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant however, no submissions/evidences/documents have been filed by the appellant to substantiate the grounds of appeal. The appellant was given specific opportunity to file any details filed by him before any authority physically/online earlier as no replies of the appellant are found existing in the online system. Thus, in the absence of any submission/documents, I have no material to interfere with observations and addition made by the AO. In view of the above, I upheld the decision of the AO and confirm the addition of Rs.11,60,000/-. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed. I.T.A. No. 25/Jodh/2024 Divya Prakash Goyal vs. ITO 7 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order passed under section 250 read with section 251 of the Act.” 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the Id. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of equity and justice. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee is not serious about pursuing his case in spite of six opportunity given to assessee. But not objected for remand back to the file of AO. 7. We have heard parties and perused the materials available on record. From the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, it is noted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) for want of non-prosecution of the appeal. The object of the Bench is to provide justice and readdress the grievance as raised before us. Hence, looking to the facts /grievance of the assessee as raised hereinabove, the Bench feels that one more chance should be given to the assessee to contest the case before the ld. AO and submit the necessary reply to resolve the issue raised in the appeal before him. Thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. AO for afresh adjudication of the case but by providing one more opportunity in this case. I.T.A. No. 25/Jodh/2024 Divya Prakash Goyal vs. ITO 8 8. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) (DR. S. Seethalakshmi) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 27/11/2024 *Santosh Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order "