LABHUBEN KIRANBHAI RATOJA,RAJKOT V. ITO WD 1(2)(4), RAJKOT

ITA 434/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Labhuben Kiranbhai Ratoja, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 1,08,83,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its subsequent taxation under section 115BBE. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot, and was upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that the deposits were made by her husband, Kiranbhai Ratoja, and not by her. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not been given sufficient opportunity to present her case and submit relevant documents during the appellate proceedings, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the assessing officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779873 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: BAKUL GANATRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोटɊायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.434/RJT/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Labhuben Kiranbhai Ratoja, Chamunda Krupa, 9 Ranchhodnagar Society, Gujarat-360003 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AKAPR3388L (अपीलाथŎ/Assessee) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) अपीलाथŎ ओर से/ Assessee by Shri Bakul Ganatra, AR ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 07.06.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 15.12.2019. 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer Wd. 1(2)(4), Rajkot that the sum of Rs. 1,08,83,000/- was assessable as cash credit of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.434/RJT/2024 Labhuben K. Ratoja Page | 2 2.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer Wd. 1(2)(4), Rajkot that the addition of Rs. 1,08,83,000/- under the head income from other sources was chargeable under section 115BBE of the Act. 3.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer Wd. 1(2)(4), Rajkot that the sum of Rs. 1,08,83,000/- belongs to the assessee even after knowing the fact that it actually belongs to her husband Shri Kiranbhai Ratoja (PAN: AJCPR5163N) and consequently initiating the action against him for the same cause of action. 4.The assessee may please be allowed to add additional ground and amend, alter, delete or withdraw any or all of the existing ground from time to time during the proceedings of this appeal in the future.” 3.Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee had filed return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18 on 20.03.2018, declaring total income at Rs.2,94,420/-. The assessee`s case has been selected for scrutiny in CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued on 10.08.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s.129 of the Act was issued on 31.08.2019 and duly served upon the assessee. On perusal of the details available in the ITBA, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.1,08,83,000/- in the bank A/c. No. 443005001000232, maintained with Jivan Commercial Co-Op bank Ltd, during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the complete details and source of the cash deposits made by him in the above bank account through e- proceedings in the ITBA portal. 4. In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee in her submission had submitted that the cash deposits were made by her husband Sri Kiranbhai Ratoja and did not pertains to her. In this regard, when query was made to submit PAN, Balance sheet, Return of Income, Trading Account, Profit and loss Account etc, of her husband, Sri Kiranbhai Ratoja, the assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.434/RJT/2024 Labhuben K. Ratoja Page | 3 in her submission had submitted that the she had labour work of imitation jewellery, since long and had received small cash amount of labour work of imitation jewellery from various persons and had no other bank account except joint account with her husband, which was being operated and maintained by her husband and the cash deposits which was found to be deposited during demonetization period, was done by her husband. The assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee, as the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence, which shows that deposit of Rs.1,08,83,000/- in the bank A/c. No. 443005001000232, maintained with Jivan Commercial Co-Op bank Ltd, was made by her husband. Therefore, assessing officer made addition to the tune of Rs.1,08,83,000/-, under section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 5. On appeal, by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the statement of the assessee was found contradictory during the course of assessment proceedings, as the assessee in first statement stated that the cash deposits in bank account was maintained by her husband and the same did not pertains to her. The assessee further stated that her husband did not file the return of income for the concerned year in view of income being below taxable income and submitted that the return of income of her husband was filed till the A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee therefore, failed to furnish the documentary evidence with regard to cash deposits either during the course of assessment proceedings or during the course of appellate proceedings. In this way the deposits remained unexplained form the part of the assessee. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by assessing officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee is in appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.434/RJT/2024 Labhuben K. Ratoja Page | 4 7.At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, before learned CIT(A), the assessee could not submit the relevant documents and evidences before learned CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has passed the appellate order based on the statement of facts only. The Learned Counsel submitted that now assessee wants to submit relevant documents and evidences and additional evidences before the ld CIT(A) to prove his claim, therefore, the appeal of the assessee may either be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A), or before the assessing officer, for fresh adjudication. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue, submitted that assessee did not file the required documents and evidences during assessment stage or during appellate stage. The husband of the assessee has shown total income to the tune of Rs. 2,94,420/-, which is below the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax and the husband of the assessee did not show this cash deposit in his Balance Sheet and in the Income Tax Return filed by him, therefore, it raises doubt that husband of the assessee does not have any sources of income. Hence, to prove this fact by the assessee whether this money, (which was deposited during the demonetization period), belongs to husband or wife, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. DR for the Revenue to the effect that even the husband of the assessee does not have adequate source to explain such cash deposited during the demonetization period. Besides, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not submit the relevant documents and evidences before ld.CIT(A) and now the assessee wants to submit Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.434/RJT/2024 Labhuben K. Ratoja Page | 5 additional evidences. Therefore, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the mater may be remitted back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine these facts and additional evidences. 10. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/-- Sd/- (Dinesh Mohan Sinha) (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 13/10/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat0 6. Guard File Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.434/RJT/2024 Labhuben K. Ratoja Page | 6 By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "