MUKESH SHARMA, JAIPUR V. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

ITA 93/JPR/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Mukesh Sharma against the order of the CIT(A) which sustained the action of the AO in considering a sum of Rs.26,34,500/- cash deposited in bank during the demonetization period as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the disallowance of a claim under Chapter VIA of the Act. The assessee argued that he was not provided adequate opportunity to explain the source of the cash deposits, leading to an ex-parte order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's non-cooperation and negligence in pursuing the case but decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present his case before the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132176 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MSt. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 93/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mukesh Sharma 44, Raman Vatika, Khirni Phatak Road Jhotwara, Jaipur – 302 012 cuke Vs. The DCIT Circle-1 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASRPS 0467 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 29/03/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 11 /04/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 29-12-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred seriously in law in sustaining the action of the AO considering a sum of Rs.26,34,500/- cash deposited in bank during demonetization period as unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 without allowing proper opportunity to the assessee for explaining the same. 2 ITA NO. 93/JP/2023 SHRI MUKESH SHARMA VS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred further in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the claim of the assessee for Rs.1,64,673/- under Chapter VIA of the Act without allowing proper opportunity to the assessee.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of one day in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed a condonation application dated 01-03-2023 praying therein that the assessee was out of Jaipur in connection with his business work, therefore, this delay occurred which may kindly be condoned. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay but left the matter upon the Bench to decide it as deem fit and proper in the case. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that there is delay of one day in filing the appeal by the assessee and the arguments so advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee is justified and thus the delay of one day is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. MSt. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 3 ITA NO. 93/JP/2023 SHRI MUKESH SHARMA VS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ‘’6. I have gone through the facts of the case, the statement of facts filed in Form No. 35 and the assessment order passed by the AO. On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the return of income was e-filed by the appellant for the assessment year 2017-18 by declaring income of Rs.22,81,080/-. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, it is observed by the assessing officer that the appellant has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.25,34,500/- in his bank account number 00250 maintain with Bank of Baroda, Kalwar Road, Jaipur during demonetization period. The appellant was required to furnish details of source of cash deposit in the bank account but in spite of providing several opportunities neither any detail or nor are reply has been filed by the appellant. In absence of any explanation/ reply from the appellant, the amount of Rs.26,34,500/- being cash deposit during demonetization period was added to the total income of the appellant u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2017-18. Sufficient and adequate opportunities wee afforded to the appellant but the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. 7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of ‘Statement of Facts’. After 4 ITA NO. 93/JP/2023 SHRI MUKESH SHARMA VS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated at table at page no. 1 & 2. No reply whatsoever has been submitted by the appellant. Even the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-compliance on the part of the appellant. It can be safely presumed that the appellant is not pursing his appeal. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer. Thus the appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assesseee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Simultaneously, the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit of the assessee mentioning therein that because of engagement of the assessee in business work, the staff / accountant could not furnish the desired details before the AO who subsequently passed the ex-parte order for non- submission of details by the assessee and thus similar things happened before the ld. CIT(A) who also passed ex-parte order sustaining the view of the AO. Thus the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/ submissions before the AO in the interest of equity and justice. 5 ITA NO. 93/JP/2023 SHRI MUKESH SHARMA VS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities praying that the assessee was provided various opportunities by the lower authorities to argue the case but the assessee was lethargic and unserious to pursue his case and thus the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) should be sustained and the cost of Rs.1.00 lac should be awarded to the assessee for not pursuing his case in spite of providing various opportunities by the AO and by the ld. CIT(A) which reveals from the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case of the assessee as the ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the same in his order confirming the order of the AO wherein the AO added a sum of Rs.26,34,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act being the cash deposited during the demonetization period. The Bench observed that the assessee was really lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case in spite of providing various opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) and the AO as mentioned in their orders. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee was granted several opportunities either by the ld. CIT(A) or by the AO to argue the case but the assessee remained non-cooperative and negligent in pursuing his case on the dates of hearing of the appeal for which the Bench awards cost of Rs.5,000/- directing the assessee to deposit the same in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the AOs by the assessee for proof 6 ITA NO. 93/JP/2023 SHRI MUKESH SHARMA VS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR Thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO to decide the issue relating to a sum of Rs.26,34,500/- deposited in bank during the course of demonetization afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11 /04/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11 /04/2023 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Mukesh Sharma, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur . 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 93/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar