Sarojini Laxminarayan Patil, Jagaon V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Jalgaon

ITA 940/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. Sarojini Laxminarayan Patil, a medical professional, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which confirmed the addition of Rs. 78,85,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This amount was deposited in her bank account during the demonetization period and was claimed to be her professional income, already declared in her tax returns. The CIT(A) dismissed her appeal ex-parte, leading to her appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT found procedural improprieties in the handling of her case by the CIT(A) and set aside the matter for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134352 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.940/PUN/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarojini Laxminarayan Patil, 1, Sadguru Building, Khajamya Road, Chaitanya Nagar, Ganesh Colony, Jalgaon – 425001. PAN: AAYPP 9165 B V s The DCIT, Circle-1, Jalgaon. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil Pthak – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 07/02/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/02/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi dated 28.10.2022 emanating from the assessment order dated 09.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Without prejudice to die above grounds, the assessee submits that assuming without admitting that the addition u/s 68 is warranted, in that event, the professional income offered by the assessee should have been reduced by the said amount. 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that in case, if any addition is warranted u/s 68, the learned A.O. ITA No.940/PUN/2022 Sarojini Laxminarayan Patil [A] 2 has erred in levying tax @ 60% without appreciating that the amendment enhancing the tax rate @ 60% u/s 115BBE was introduced subsequently after the deposit of cash in the bank account by the assessee and hence, the said amendment was not applicable to the case of the assessee. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of appeal hearing. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without appreciating that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee and hence, there was no reason to decide the case ex-parte. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs.78,85,000/'- made by tire learned A.O. u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE on account of cash deposits in the bank account. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had failed to explain the source of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.78,85,000/- in the bank account and accordingly, the learned A.O. was justified in treating the said amount as an unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount deposited in die bank account was out of the income earned by the assessee from her medical profession and the same was duly offered to tax as an income by the assessee in the return and hence, there was no reason to treat the said amount as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 8. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had already offered an amount of Rs.78,85,000/- as her professional income and by making a separate addition u/s 68 of the said amount, it has resulted in double addition which is not justified at all.” Brief facts of the case : 2. The assessee Dr.Sarojini Laxminarayan Patil is MBBS, DGO and engaged in running a hospital under the name and style of Sadguru Maternity and Nursing Home. During the demonetization period, assessee has deposited cash amounting of Rs.78,85,000/-. ITA No.940/PUN/2022 Sarojini Laxminarayan Patil [A] 3 The Assessing Officer(AO) added the said amount under section 68 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) had passed the order confirming addition made by the AO. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) submitted that assessee could not file details before the ld.CIT(A) and assessee had filed adjournment letter. However, the ld.CIT(A) passed the order without giving any further opportunity. 4. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO. Findings & Discussion : 5. It is observed that assessee filed an adjournment for the notice dated 13.09.2022. However, the ld.CIT(A) issued another notice dated 27.09.2022 re-fixing the hearing on 17.10.2022. As per ld.CIT(A), no submission filed on or before 17.10.2022, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) decided the case based on facts available in the record. It is a fact that assessee filed an adjournment letter, therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to explain her case. Hence, this appeal is set-aside to the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ITA No.940/PUN/2022 Sarojini Laxminarayan Patil [A] 4 ld.CIT(A) shall give opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 28 th Feb, 2023/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.