MANORANJAN SAHU, BALASORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

ITA 95/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6326 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.95/C TK/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Asses s m ent Year :2017-2 018) Manoranjan Sahu, 10, AT/PO: Naya Bazar, District : Balasore-756001 Vs ITO, Ward-1, Balasore PAN No. :AFVPS 1207 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 26/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/06/2024 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.09.2023, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056304526(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. As per the office note, there is a delay of 102 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which ld. Sr. DR did not object to it. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated by the assessee in the affidavit for delay, we condone the delay of 102 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal of the assessee finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, derives income from wholesale trading of eggs and filed its return of income on 09.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,87,060/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO completed the ITA No.95/CTK/2024 2 assessment stating that the assessee has inflated his sales in paper for the period of pre-demonetization period to show the unexplained money as cash in hand as on 09.11.2016 and deposited the same during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the AO made the addition of Rs.29,85,500/- treating the same as unexplained cash credit in the bank account of the assessee. Further the AO has also made addition of Rs.1,14,300/- u/s.36(1)(ii) of the Act. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee has produced the documentary evidence as were sought for by the AO, however, those documents have not been considered. Even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed statement of facts along with grounds of appeal. But the ld. CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case and substantiate its claim before the AO. 4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order page 3 & 4 shows that the AO has asked for certain details regarding nature and source of cash deposit to which the assessee has furnished the details of cash deposit, however, the AO found that there is some inflation of sales in paper for the period of pre- demonetization period. Further on perusal of page 9 of the order of the ld. ITA No.95/CTK/2024 3 CIT(A), clearly shows that notices were issued to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), however, no compliance has been made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. On being asked, the ld. AR submitted that he would be able to prove that there is no such inflation before the AO, if the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to produce the details. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunities to substantiate its claim. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings before the AO, positively. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2024. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 26/06/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. sआदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Cop.y of the Order forwarded to : आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- Manoranjan Sahu, 10, AT/PO: Naya Bazar, District : Balasore-756001 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1, Balasore 3. आयकर आय ु क्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ज पाईऱ / Guard file. सत्यावऩत प्रयत //True Copy//