Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360977 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
20-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Judgement Text
"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.194/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Hareshkumar Indravadam Shah 23, Nandanvan Society Nr. Bus Stand, Halol Panch Mahal 389 350 PAN : ABWPS 4277 L Vs ACIT, Cir.3(1) Vadodara. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Bhavik Khandediya, R Revenue by : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20/05/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)] dated 26.11.2024 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\" for short) dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed under section 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal read as under: ITA No.194/Ahd/2025 3 and sundry creditors. The assessee failing to do so, the AO issued another show cause notice dated 14.12.2019 proposing additions of the cash deposited in large quantity during the demonetization period in Bank of Baroda, Halol Branch, as also proposing additions of sundry creditors and show caused as to why assessment should not be finalized under section 144 of the Act. The AO has noted in his impugned order at page no.9 details of notices/letters issued to the assessee viz. on 28.8.2019, 7.12.2019, 14.12.2019 and 14.12.2019. The assessee having failed to furnish the requisite information during the assessment proceedings, despite being given a number of opportunities, the AO was compelled to proceed to finalise the assessment under section 144 of the Act, and made addition of cash found deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee of Rs.83,27,423/- u/s 69A of the Act and on account sundry creditors and unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.3,53,050/- & Rs.2,02,67,567/- resp. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority where he challenged the order of the AO as being invalid on the ground that the additions were made merely on the basis of circumstantial evidences and without following the principles of natural justice; that the AO did not provide copy of the bank statements and opportunity of cross-examination; that most of the notices issued by the AO were not received by the assessee and that despite submissions and supporting documents, the AO hastily finalized the assessment; that the order of the AO was procedurally and substantially defective as fair opportunity was not given to the assessee, and that the AO wrongly invoked section 69A instead of appropriate section 68 for making additions related to cash deposits without looking into the audited books of accounts and other ITA No.194/Ahd/2025 5 assessee and not recorded in its books of accounts and the source of which was not explained. The case of the assessee is that the record with the AO itself revealed that the cash was all recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee, and therefore, no addition under section 69A could have been made on the basis of material on record itself. (ii) The other reason is that the entire unsecured loans had been added without issuing any show cause notice to the assessee, which is against the principles of natural justice. His plea, therefore, was that since the AO has passed his order in gross violation of principles of natural justice, and he has passed a highly unjustified order, he should not have been given second chance to pass a fresh order. 8. Ld.DR however opposed the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and contended that despite the assesses non-cooperation in assessment proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) had been fair enough to give another chance to the assessee to explain his case. 9. We have heard both the parties, gone through the order of the authorities below and considered the documents whichever referred to before us by both the sides. 10. We do not find any merit in the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the Ld.CIT(A) was wrong in having given a fresh opportunity to the AO to frame assessment in the present case , when his order passed initially was grossly unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. ITA No.194/Ahd/2025 7 ITA No.194/Ahd/2025 9 of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the addition made of the cash found deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee was wrongly made as unaccounted cash deposits, source of which remained unexplained. 13. It is not disputed that the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has merely referred to the material already on record to point out that if the AO would have applied his mind to the same, it would have been revealed to him that the bank accounts where he found cash deposited were already accounted for in the books of accounts. But the ld.counsel for the assessee has failed to demonstrate such fact before us to our satisfaction. We have noted no such identity of the facts relating to all the bank accounts noted by the AO, and the bank accounts reflected by the audited accounts of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any merit in his contention that the addition of cash deposits in Bank was grossly unjustified. 14. The other contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, that the addition of unsecured loans was made without issuing any show cause notice to the assessee, we find again is without any merit and is contrary to the facts on record. The assessment order reveals that the last show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 22.12.2019 wherein the assessee was asked to comply with all the earlier notices issued to it which remained un-complied with, and it was further pointed out that if the assessee did not respond to the same, the assessment would be finalized under section 144 of the Act. This fact is noted at para-8 of the assessment as under: “8. The assesses again failed to provide any submission or reply to this notice for the reason best known to him.in the back drop of this non-compliance this ITA No.194/Ahd/2025 11 16. There is no infirmity, we hold, in the order of the ld.CIT(A) restoring all the issues back to the AO for deciding afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee, in exercise of his order under section 251(1)(a) of the Act. No case has been absolutely made out by the assessee requiring the quashing of the assessment order at all. 17. In view of the above, we find no merit in the assessee’s appeal seeking outright quashing of the impugned assessment order. We uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) restoring the matter to the AO for fresh examination. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th May, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad,dated 20/05/2025 "
AI Insights
The case involves Shri Hareshkumar Indravadam Shah, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2017-18, where the Assessing Officer had made additions to the assessee's income under sections 69A and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits and unsecured loans. The assessee contested that these additions were made without proper evidence and in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the case back to the AO for a detailed examination, rejecting the assessee's arguments.
