INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KALYAN, KALYAN WEST V. AWAMI IMADI FUND BHIWANDI, BHIWANDI

ITA 5871/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) as the appellant and Awami Imadi Fund Bhiwandi Madrasa Arabia Miftahul Uloom as the respondent. The dispute arose from the reassessment of the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2018-19, where unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs. 1,17,10,000 were added to the income. The CIT(A) had earlier deleted this addition, which the revenue challenged, arguing that the additional evidence provided by the assessee was not examined by the AO as per Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the AO was not given a chance to examine the new documents, leading to the remand of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473994 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAKIL MOHAMMED AYYUB; RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2); 250; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 5871/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) 1st Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan West - 421301. Vs. Awami Imadi Fund Bhiwandi Madrasa Arabia Miftahul Uloom, Bhusal Mohalla, Bhiwandi. PAN/GIR No.AAETA0102F (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Shakil Mohammed Ayyub Momin (Manager) Respondent by : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 04.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the revenue, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2018-19. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: a. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the submissions made by the assessee during appellate proceedings were in the nature of additional evidences and therefore erred in not allowing the A.O. to examine the additional evidence admitted by them as per the provisions u/s 46A(3) of the 1. T. Rules, 1962. b. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. ITA No. 5871/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Amami Imadi Fund Bhiwandi 2 c. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if considered necessary.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee trust has not filed its return of income for the year under consideration and its case was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2024, as per the information received from the ‘Insight Portal’ data that the assessee has made cash deposits in Union Bank of India amounting to Rs. 1,17,10,000/- and cash withdrawals of Rs. 35,75,000/-. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return of income dated 08.04.2024, declaring total income at Rs. 1,78,309/-. The statutory notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) had passed the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 13.02.2023, determining total income at Rs. 1,18,88,310/-, after making addition u/s. 68 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 1,17,10,000/- as unexplained cash credit. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 08.09.2024, deleted the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short), after considering the submission of the assessee along with documentary evidence filed before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The revenue is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the ld. AO was not given an opportunity to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee as per Rule 46A(3) of the I. T. Rules, 1962. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) for the revenue contended that ITA No. 5871/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Amami Imadi Fund Bhiwandi 3 the assessee has filed all the supporting documentary evidences before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the same, deleted the impugned addition by holding that the assessee has discharged the primary onus casted upon it to prove the identity, and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transaction. The ld. DR further contended that the ld. CIT(A) neither sought for remand report from the ld. AO nor had given an opportunity to the ld. AO to examine the said documents. The ld. DR prayed that the same may be remanded to the ld. CIT(A) to extend an opportunity for the ld. AO to examine and verify the documents filed by the assessee. 7. The Representative of the assessee trust who appeared in person was also heard on this issue. 8. On the above facts of the case, it is observed that the ld. AO has made an addition on the ground that the assessee has not substantiated the source of the transactions made by the assessee trust. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by relying on the documents filed by the assessee. Upon perusal of the same, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has not confronted the evidences filed by the assessee to the ld. AO, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. We therefore deem it fit to remand these issues back to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, after duly considering the submission of both sides. Needless it is to say that sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be given to either parties. ITA No. 5871/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Amami Imadi Fund Bhiwandi 4 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 06.03.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "