SARLADEVI SURESH GUPTA, IGATPURI NASHIK MH IN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) NASHIK, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAWAN OLD AGRA ROAD NASHIK

ITA 1360/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7803 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1360/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Sarladevi Suresh Gupta, C/o. S M Gupta And Sons, Railway Station Canteen, Igatpuri District, Nashik – 422 403 Maharashtra. PAN AGDPG9296R vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 (2), Income Tax Office, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gandhi Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik – 422 002. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date of Hearing : 12.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057211659(1), dated 19.10.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.1360/PUN./2023 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC is bad in law on various counts and that the same should be set aside. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has erred in confirming the order passed by the AO being violative of natural justice and thereby is bad in law and that the same should be set aside. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,50,000/- without appreciating the material available on record and that the addition made by the AO, so confirmed by the CIT Appeal NFAC should be deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has erred in not duly considering the submissions made by the Assessee in confirming the addition made by the AO and that the addition should be deleted. 5. The Appellant craves the right to add, amend, alter, substitute and modify any or all the grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Smt. Nichal vehemently supported the impugned addition by quoting the NFAC’s detailed discussion to this effect reading as under : 3 ITA.No.1360/PUN./2023 4 ITA.No.1360/PUN./2023 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s stand against and in respect of the correctness of the impugned sec.69A addition of Rs.14.50 lakhs representing cash deposits made in Dena Bank. Suffice to say, both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have failed in filing reasonable explanation attributing the source of the impugned cash deposits. The fact however remains that they have nowhere considered the assessee’s explanation quoting various bank statement(s) and accumulated past savings in the preceding assessment years. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.10 lakhs only out 5 ITA.No.1360/PUN./2023 of Rs.14.50 lakhs would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.4.5 lakhs in otherwords. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.04.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 17 th April, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.