Shri Suresh Jayntilal Chandi, Ganhdinagar V. The DCIT, B.K. Circle, Palanpur

ITA 94/AHD/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Suresh Jayantilal Chandi against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad, which upheld the addition of Rs.8,20,000 towards unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer had initially made this addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the reopening of the case under Section 147 due to observed cash deposits. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal but maintained the addition, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, concluded that the CIT(A) had erred in not considering the explanations and evidence provided by the assessee, thus allowing the appeal and deleting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129478 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-01-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 69A

Judgement Text

ITA No.94/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.94/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Suresh Jayantilal Chandi, vs. DCIT, BK Circle, Plot No.1186, Sector 3/D, Palanpur. Gandhinagar – 392 003. [PAN – ABEPC 5385 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 16.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.01.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :- “1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 29-11-2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 by CIT(A)-4, Abad upholding the addition of Rs.8,20,000/- towards cash deposits in Bank account unexplained is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned additions. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the evidence relating to loans from farmers & others was told to be produced before AO during remand proceedings but in absence of any such opportunity allowed the same could not be produced in appeal. Hence there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.8,20,000/- towards cash deposits in Bank account unexplained. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.8,20,000/- towards cash deposits in Bank account unexplained ITA No.94/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 3.1 Without prejudice to above and in alternative the addition upheld by CIT(A) is highly excessive and calls for reduction. It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of Rs.8,20,000/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.” 3. No return has been filed by the assessee. As per the information in ITS, the Assessing Officer observed that in assessee’s case cash was deposited in his bank account and, therefore, case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, on 31.08.2018 the assessee filed return of income at total income of Rs.2,19,758/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,79,000/- under Section 69A of the Act as cash deposits 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite giving proper notice. There is no fresh address filed by the assessee to the Registry. Therefore, we are taking up the appeal by taking into account the submissions made before the CIT(A) which are quoted in the order of the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has given details and the CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 8. Heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee before the CIT(A) has given the explanation about cash deposits of Rs.2,50,000/- out of his own sources to start the business and purchase goods from S.J. Trivedy and also given details to that effect. The assessee has also given details related to cash deposit of Rs.4,20,000/- on 22.05.2010 and Rs.3,70,000/- cash was obtained from cash loan from farmers. The assessee has given details of Rs.2,00,000/- taken from one Shri Barot Rameshkumar Halaji and Rs.1,70,000/- from Barot Sureshkumar Babulal which were in respect of loan and the same was repaid. ITA No.94/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 3 of 3 As the cash was deposited to purchase goods on discount price from S.J. Trivedi, the documents which was submitted were not considered by the CIT(A) and the same was added. As relates to Rs.89,000/-, Rs.20,000/- & Rs.4,00,000/-, the assessee has given the details to purchase agricultural goods but the same was not at all considered by the CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 30 th day of January, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 30 th day of January, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad