MOHAMMAD ABRAR CHOUDHARY,PUNE V. DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

ITA 1464/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mohammad Abrar Choudhary, the appellant, who contested an order from the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-11, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,79,97,380 to his taxable income for the assessment year 2017-18. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 68 and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, citing unexplained cash deposits. The appellant argued that these deposits were from cash sales of industrial scrap trading and sought an opportunity to present his case, which was not granted by the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte decision. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126802 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B. PHADKE; LD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68; 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1464/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mohammad Abrar Choudhary, Gat No.692, Kudalwadi Road, Chikhali, Pune- 411062. PAN : AGHPC3905D Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “General ground 1. The learned CIT(A), Pune 11 erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,79,97,380/- made by the learned AO to the taxable income of the appellant. Ex-parte Order- Principal of Natural Justice Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 29.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.04.2025 ITA No.1464/PUN/2024 2 2. The Appellant contends that appellant, unfortunately, glossed over with the communication from the ITBA portal and that, Appellant is keen to contest the matter on merits. Appellant also contends that, learned AO ought to have granted some more time opportunity for making the written submissions in the interest of natural justice. Grounds on Merits 3. The Appellant contends that, the learned AO erred in law and on facts in taxing cash deposited in bank accounts amounting to Rs. 1,79,97,380/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 11588E without appreciating the fact that, cash deposits were out from collections of cash sales of industrial scrap trading. 4. Appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify/amend/delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and a survey action 133A of the IT Act was carried out at his premises on 27.12.2016. During the survey, the assessee admitted an additional income of Rs.2,19,97,380/- on account of difference of cash in hand and cash deposited in old high denomination notes in the bank. The assessee also stated at the time of survey that the unaccounted cash deposited after 08.11.2016 shall be declared in Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana i.e. PMGKY. Subsequently, assessee furnished application before DDIT stating that after completing the books of accounts the amount of unexplained cash comes to only Rs.40,00,000/- and the same has been offered in PMGKY. The assessee has furnished its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.30,64,150/-. The case was ITA No.1464/PUN/2024 3 selected through CASS for scrutiny and accordingly notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee along with questionnaire. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the total income at Rs.2,10,61,530/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.30,64,150/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained cash credits of Rs.1,79,97,380/- (amount declared at the time of survey at Rs.2,19,97,380/- minus Rs.40,00,000/- declared under PMGKY) u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 4. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the assessee missed the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) & therefore could not appear on the date of hearings provided by Ld. CIT(A) which consequently resulted in passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A). It was the sole prayer/ request of the counsel of the assessee that at least one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT (A). ITA No.1464/PUN/2024 4 Accordingly the counsel of the assessee requested to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) & further requested to direct LD CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal . 6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. It was the main prayer of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte i.e. without hearing the appellant and therefore one opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). LD Counsel of the assessee fairly accepted that proper opportunity was allowed to the assessee by LD CIT(A) however in the interest of justice requested to provide one more opportunity. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & also in the interest of justice, without going into merits of the case we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the mater back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby ITA No.1464/PUN/2024 5 directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and produce documents/ evidences/explanation in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25th April, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Pune-11. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "