Muralidar kamisetty , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2) , Hyderabad

ITA 368/Hyd/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Muralidar Kamisetty, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's decision treating Rs. 9,07,000 as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the lower authorities dismissed his appeal without proper opportunity and failed to consider his submissions adequately. The tribunal noted the absence of major cash withdrawals in the relevant financial years and the lack of response from the appellant during the CIT(A) proceedings, leading to an ex-parte decision. However, in the interest of justice, the tribunal remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122290 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.368/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muralidar Kamisetty, H.No.11-6-221/1/G5 SVS Nest Vishal Residency, Pochammabagh, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500059. PAN : ALMPK9342E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 13(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 25/09/2023 Date of pronouncement: 26/09/2023 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.24.05.2023 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA No.368/Hyd/2023 2 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) /National Faceless appeal Centre is erroneous both on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal without giving any proper opportunity. 2. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) National Faceless appeal Centre is erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in treating an amount of Rs.907000/-as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act without giving any proper opportunity erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in dismissing the appeal without giving any proper opportunity 3. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) National Faceless appeal Centre is erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in treating an amount of Rs.907000/-as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act without giving any proper opportunity The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) National Faceless appeal Centre is erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in applying the provisions u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act and raising a demand of Rs 5,84,430/- without giving any proper opportunity. 4. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) National Faceless appeal Centre is erred in confirming action of the Assessing officer without discussing/without considering appellant submission without giving any opportunity. 5. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) National Faceless appeal Centre is erred in confirming action of the assessing officer without appreciating the facts and merits of the case. 6. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) National Faceless appeal Centre is erred in passing an order in cryptic. Without giving any proper opportunity. 7. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred confirming the action of the assessing officer in applying provision u/s 115BBE further erred in raising demand of Rs5,84,430/without giving any proper opportunity. 8. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) National Faceless appeal Centre is erred in charging interest u/s 234A of Rs. /- 234B Rs /-“. ITA No.368/Hyd/2023 3 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 18.07.2017 admitting total income at Rs.5,84,430/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) dated 24.09.2018 was issued to the assessee. Further, notice u/s 142(1), calling for information and show-cause notice were issued to the assessee. In response to the notices issued, assessee submitted the information online. After verifying the information submitted Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed order on 20.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Act. 3.1. During the course of assessment, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 3,40,000/-, Rs. 4,47,000/- and Rs. 3,70,000/- (totaling to Rs. 11,57,000/-) in his Canara Bank, Andhra Bank and SBH accounts respectively during the demonetization period. However, keeping in view that assessee is a pensioner and he might have saved some money for medical and health purpose, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was allowed as cash balance available with him for cash deposit during the demonetization period and the balance amount of cash deposit of Rs. 9,07,000/- was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2017-18 and taxed as per the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.368/Hyd/2023 4 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal which was later migrated to ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before me. 6. Before me, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the explanation given by the assessee that he used to make withdrawals from pension from F.Y. 2009-10 to F.Y. 2016-17 and used to keep the same for health and medical purposes was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Ld.AR further submitted that assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances and as such, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer and passed ex-parte order. The learned Authorized Representative further submitted that as the lower authorities decided the issue without discussing the factual details of the case, requested that the matter may be sent back to the lower authorities for a fresh review, taking into consideration of the circumstances. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to remand the matter back to the lower authorities. 8. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the record, it is evident that though the assessee claimed to have used pension withdrawals for health and medical purposes, however as his bank statements are ITA No.368/Hyd/2023 5 revealing no major cash withdrawals during FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, Assessing Officer rejected the explanation for cash deposits of Rs. 11,57,000/- from earlier withdrawals (FY 2009-10 to 2014-15) during the demonetization period in FY 2016-17. However, considering the assessee’s status as a pensioner, the Assessing Officer allowed Rs.2,50,000/- treating it as a cash balance for medical expenses and treated the remaining cash deposit of Rs.9,07,000/- as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the order of ld.CIT(A), at para 4.1 and 4.2, it was mentioned that though the assessee was given sufficient time and opportunity, however, there was no response from the assessee and hence, the matter was being decided as ex- parte based on material on record. The ld.CIT(A) also mentioned the details of non-compliance, in a tabular form, at para 4.1. of his order. 9. In light of the above, though, invariably the appeal of the assessee is required to be dismissed on account of non- compliance, however, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interests of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to appear and contest the case before the Assessing Officer. Hence, I remand back the appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for passing fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to be deposited in the Prime Minster Relief Fund within one month or from the date of receipt of this order or whichever is earlier. Further, the assessee is directed to appear before the ITA No.368/Hyd/2023 6 Assessing Officer on the date of hearing fixed by the Assessing Officer and shall file all the documents / evidence in support of its case. In case, the assessee failed to file any documents in support of its case, Assessing Officer shall decide the matter in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26 th September, 2023. Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 26 th September, 2023. TYNM/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Muralidar Kamisetty, H.No.11-6-221/1/G5 SVS Nest Vishal Residency, Pochammabagh, Saroornagar, Telangana – 500059. 2 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 13(2), Hyderabad. 3 PCIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order