Rajesh Kanthaliya, Udaipur V. ITO, Ward-1(4), Udaipur

ITA 88/JODH/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Kanthaliya, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs.9,20,500 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Udaipur, under section 144 of the Act, due to unexplained cash deposits in the appellant's bank accounts on the date of demonetisation enhancement, 08.11.2019. The appellant contended that the addition was confirmed without a full opportunity to present his case, which he argued was a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal, considering the absence of a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to substantiate his claims, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122866 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 250; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.88/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Kanthaliya, 212, Adinath Market, DholiBawadi Second Floor, Udaipur (Raj.) [PAN:ALUPK3504J] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4),Udaipur. (Rajasthan) (Respondent) Appellant by None. Respondent by Sh.S. M. Joshi, JCIT DR Date of Hearing 17.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, [in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’], order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Udaipur, [in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 144of the Act. I.T.A. No. 88/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 2. The assessee has taken only the solely ground: “1. The CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs.9,20,500/- under section 69A of the IT Act. The confirmation of addition of income is without following full opportunity and considering facts and circumstances of the case. Hence addition made is bad in law and be deleted.” 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. Although, the adjournment petition was filed and the ld. AR mentioned that due to sudden attack of Asthma the ld. AR was unable to appear before the bench. On perusal of the documents, we find that no supporting evidence is filed with the petition. Accordingly,the adjournment petition is rejected. Therefore, in the interest of the justice, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after considering the submission of the ld. DR. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. In the impugned assessment year, the addition was made amount to Rs.9,20,500/- u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee deposited cash in different bank accounts during the impugned assessment year. After complete verification, the ld. AO ascertained that Rs.9,20,500/- which was deposited in the two bank accounts in specified bank note (SBN) remained unexplained as this were cash I.T.A. No. 88/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 in hand with the assessee as on dated enhancement of demonetisation i,e. 08.11.2019. As per the ld. AO, the assessee was completely failed to explain the source of cash deposit, accordinglyunder best judgment the addition is confirmed. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order and upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 6. We heard the rival submission and consider the documents available in the record. The assessee has agitated the ground before the bench that both the authorities are not allow the reasonable opportunity to substantiate the claim. The ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. A reasonable opportunity is denied for the assessee which is violation of natural justice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub served if the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for consideration thereof afresh. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the appellate procedure before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing for setting aside proceedings. I.T.A. No. 88/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 88/Jodh/2022 isallowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV (On Tour) Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order