NILOFER DEEPAK DALAL, MUMBAI V. ITO-27(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 468/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Nilofer Deepak Dalal, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 10,63,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This addition was in respect of cash deposits in a bank account jointly held by the appellant and her parents. The Assessing Officer had initially made this addition following the receipt of information about the cash deposits, which the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for admission of additional evidence, which was not available at earlier stages, and thus decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300142 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Tangible material
• Section: 148; 250; 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 468/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2011-12) Nilofer Deepak Dalal A-504, Kukreja Seetaram Niwas, VB Lane, Nr. Kukreja Palace, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400075. Vs. ITO, 27(2)(4), Tower 6, Vashi railway station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-4000703 PAN/GIR No. : ASHPD4312N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Govind Javeri.AR Respondent by : Ms. Naina K. Kumar.DR Date of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 10,63,000/made by the Assessing Officer u/s69A of the Income-tax Act1961 ("the Act") in respect cash deposited in the bank account which was held by the appellant and her parents jointly. ITA Nos. 468/Mum/2023 Nilofer Deepak Dalal, Mumbai. - 2 - 2. The CIT (A) ought to have deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs. 10,63,000/made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,63,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have caused necessary enquiries before confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the appellant 5. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of cash deposits made in the bank account is bad in law as no prudent person could form an opinion that depositing such cash in the bank constitute escapement of income, more particularly when the appellant had become major on 07.03.2009, studying in college at that relevant time without having any independent source of earing income. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have held that a. the Assessing Officer cannot reopen assessment without any tangible Material b the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment to verify the information received on I-tax Net. C the conditions stipulated in section 69A of the Act were not fulfilled and as suchno addition could be made by the A.Ou/s. 69A of the Act. D the order passed by the Assessing Officer was in violation of principles of natural justice, mechanical, bad in law and without jurisdiction ITA Nos. 468/Mum/2023 Nilofer Deepak Dalal, Mumbai. - 3 - e. the appellant having just attained majority, could not have earned income to the tune of Rs. 10,63,000/-. 7. The order passed by the first appellate authority is in violation of principles of natural justice, invalid and bad in law 8 The appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) has received information from I-tax Net that that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 10,63,000/- in the bank account and the assessee has not filed the return of income. Therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed a letter mentioning that the return of income filed for the A.Y 2011-12 on 23.02.2018 Rs.Nil be treated as due compliance. Subsequently the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details. The AO has issued final show cause notice dated 10.11.2018 and the assessee has filed the explanations referred at Para 7.2 ITA Nos. 468/Mum/2023 Nilofer Deepak Dalal, Mumbai. - 4 - of the assessment order. Whereas, the AO was not satisfied with the details and observed that the assessee has not explained the sources of cash deposits in the bank account and made addition u/s 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs. 10,63,000/- and passed order U/sec143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 10-12-2018. 3. Aggrieved by the order the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but was not satisfied with the explanations and information and confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition by the AO overlooking the factual information filed in the proceedings. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules. Per contra, the Ld.DR ITA Nos. 468/Mum/2023 Nilofer Deepak Dalal, Mumbai. - 5 - submitted that the cash deposits transactions are not established with evidences before the lower authorities and the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition by the A.O. as the transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the affidavit, bank statements, contract notes, income tax details of her father which were not available earlier and could not produce before the lower authorities. Further the evidences play important role in decision making in the adjudicating proceedings. Therefore considering the facts, circumstances and additional evidences. We are of the opinion that the assessee should not suffer for non filing of material information, as the evidences played vital role in decision making and we admit the additional evidence. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) ITA Nos. 468/Mum/2023 Nilofer Deepak Dalal, Mumbai. - 6 - and restore the entire disputed issue along with the additional evidence to the file of the assessing officer to decide afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information and we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.04.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (BR BASKARAN) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 21.04.2023 KRK, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT (Judicial) 4. The PCIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, //True Copy//()