Jupitor Bullions, Narasannapeta V. Asst.commissioner of Income,Circle-4(1) Tax, Visakhapatnam

ITA 25/VIZ/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3371 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA VILLURI
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “SMC” पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.25/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Jupitor Bullions Gandhi Bazar Narasannapeta Srikakulam [PAN : AAJFJ1062C] Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1) Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 12.03.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058321217(1) dated 29.11.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 26.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2 I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Jupitor Bullions,Narsannapeta 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited the cash in old currency (SBNs) during the demonetization period. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.35,50,000 and 72,50,000/- totalling to Rs.1,08,00,000/- during the months of April and November, 2016 respectively. The AO worked out the average cash deposit at Rs.54,00,000/-. As the assessee had deposited over and above the average cash deposit during the month of November 2016, the AO treated the balance amount of Rs.18,50,000/- (72,50,000-54,00,000) as unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the Act. The AO treated the balance cash deposit of Rs.89,50,000/- as gross receipts of the assessee and estimated the business income at 8% of the receipts which worked out to Rs.7,16,000/- as the assessee did not maintain books of accounts. Thus, the AO completed the assessment and passed order u/s 144 of the Act dated 26.12.2019. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3 I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Jupitor Bullions,Narsannapeta 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order passed u/s.144 of the I.T.Act are contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld.commissioner of income tax(A) (NFAC) is not correct in upholding the estimating the business income made by the assessing officer at 8% without considering the line of the business of the assessee, further the percentage estimation arrived at has no basis. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) without taking note of the submissions of the assessee has confirmed the addition made u/s 69A pertaining to cash deposits made in the firms account on dt. 11.11.2016 of Rs.18.50 lakhs ignoring this amount was deposited from out of available funds with the assessee firm. 3. For these and other reasons that are to be urged at the time of hearing of the case the appellant prays that the additions made are unwarranted, legally not tenable, therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) are to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted a petition before me seeking adjournment as paper book is to be filed. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s 69A pertaining to cash deposits of Rs.18.50 lakhs without taking note of the submissions of the assessee that the deposit was made out of available funds with the assessee firm. The Ld.AR further contended that the revenue authorities are not justified in 4 I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Jupitor Bullions,Narsannapeta estimating the business income at 8%. He, therefore pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities before the Ld.CIT(A) and hence no interference is required in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) She pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.72,50,000/- during the demonetisaton period and the cash deposit of Rs.18,50,000/- over and above the average monthly deposits of Rs.54,00,000/- was treated as unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A since the books of accounts are not maintained. The petition seeking adjournment was rejected since the assessee pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his case with credible material evidence. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is 5 I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Jupitor Bullions,Narsannapeta also directed to adhere to the notices issued and served by the revenue authorities and produce supporting documentary evidence to substantiate it’s claim. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 15 th March, 2024. Sd/- (द ु व्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 15.03.2024 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Jupitor Bullions, Gandhi Bazar,Narasannapeta Srikakulam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Visakhapatnam 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam