KIRANKUMAR AMRUTLAL SHAH ,BANASKANTHA V. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PALANPUR

ITA 1208/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kirankumar Amrutlal Shah, a Kariyana trader, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the addition of Rs.10,09,000 as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had made this addition following the demonetization period, noting substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The assessee contended that these deposits were from regular business transactions and were reflected in the sales reported in the income tax returns of previous years. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, including VAT returns and bank statements, concluded that the lower authorities had not properly considered the explanations and evidence provided by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790625 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURESH CHAND MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: M. K. PATEL

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1208/Ahd/2024 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kirankumar Amrutlal Shah High Way Road, At. Thara, TA. Kankrej, Dist. B.K. Thara, Gujarat 385555 बनाम/ Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4, Palanpur, èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ASSPS9718H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 02/12/2025 O R D E R The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under: “(1) That on facts and in law the learned NFAC-CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming the, addition of Rs.10,09,000/- u/s 69A of the Act in respect of Cash deposited in bank account of appellant, without confronting the copy of Remand Report and without giving adequate and reasonable opportunity to appellant to rebut the same. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1208/Ahd/2024 (Kirankumar Amrutlal Shah vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 2 – (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC-CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming the tax levied u/s 115BBE of the Act in respect of the said addition. (3) That on facts and in law, the addition made u/s 69A of the Act amounts to double taxation/addition as the entire cash deposits in all the bank accounts are already included in the sales offered to tax in the return of income filed by the Appellant.” 3. The assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2017- 18. The AO observed that during the demonetization period the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.10,09,000/- in Bank of Baroda, Thara Branch and The Pragati Co-Op Bank, Thara Branch. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. Notice u/s.133(6) of the Act were issued to Bank of Baroda, Thara Branch and The Pragati Co-Op Bank, Thara Branch on various dates. The Bank has furnished the detail in assessee’s case in the form of bank statement. The assessee filed the reply on 25.11.2019. The reply contained copies of return with balance sheet, ledger account and other copies. After going through the details, the AO made addition of Rs.10,09,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. AR submitted that despite admitting the fact that the assessee has furnished the details of VAT return, Income Tax Return, bank statement, cash deposit slip of present assessment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1208/Ahd/2024 (Kirankumar Amrutlal Shah vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 3 – year as well as income tax return of the earlier years. The AO as well as the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the same. The Ld. AR further submitted that in this year, the assessee could not file the income tax return as the assessee’s income was non-taxable. The Ld. AR also pointed out page no.7 of the CIT(A)’s order thereby stating that in earlier assessment year also. The assesse has made cash deposits of Rs.30,18,110/-. 6. The ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that in the particular year the assessee has not filed return of income. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The assessee is a Kariyana Trader and, thus, was dealing in cash regularly. The reason given by the assessee for not filing the return of income is categorically mentioned on page 2 of CIT(A)’s order where it is stated that the percentage of profit in consumer goods was very less in F.Y. 2016-17 (A.Y. 2017-18). Thus, on sales of Rs.48,31,861/-, his total income was Rs.2,33,612/- and, thus, not exceeded the limit liable for taxation. From the perusal of the submissions from Page 4 till 7 of the order of CIT(A), it can be seen that the assessee is regularly depositing the cash in his bank as the assessee receives cash on daily basis. This fact was not disputed either by the AO as well as CIT(A). The remand report also categorically mentions that the assessee furnished the details but as not pointed out as of further explanation is required from the assessee. The assessee has Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1208/Ahd/2024 (Kirankumar Amrutlal Shah vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 4 – demonstrated before both the authorities related to cash deposits in his bank account and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO was not right in making the addition. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced on 02/12/2025 Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 02/12/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ǒवभागीय Ĥितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "