MOHD SIRAJ HAJI MOHD YASIN ABALA,YAVATMAL V. ITO WARD 1, YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL

ITA 321/NAG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mohd. Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala, the appellant, who challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The primary issue was the addition of `1,10,00,867 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that he was merely an employee at a footwear shop and was not involved in the financial discrepancies noted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted the appellant's failure to respond to multiple notices and upheld the initial addition but remanded the case for a detailed examination of the appellant's claims regarding his employer's financial activities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773420 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT KUMAR SAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHAVIR ATAL
• Keywords: Onus to prove

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.319, 320 & 321/Nag./2025 (Assessment Year : 2014–15, 2016–17 & 2017–18) Mohd. Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala C/o Vipul Lukka, Ground Floor Peshwe Plot, Panchasheel Colony Yavatmal 445 001 PAN–AFAPA7504C ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–1, Yavatmal ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 22/09/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 25/03/2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2014–15, 2016–17 and 2017–18 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and Printed from counselvise.com 2 Mohd. Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala ITA no.319 to 321/Nag./2025 circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. However, in order to understand the implication, it would be necessary to take note of the facts of one appeal. We are, accordingly, narrating the facts, as they appear in the appeal in ITA no.319/Nag./2025, for assessment year 2014–15, the decision of which shall apply mutatis mutandis to other two appeals as well. 3. Admittedly, despite the learned CIT(A) having issued five notices to the assessee, however, the assessee failed to comply with the same by filing any written submissions and/or supporting documentary evidences, therefore, in the absence of the same, the learned CIT(A) affirmed the addition of ` 1,10,00,867, under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short \"the Act\") being unexplained money. The assessee has claimed that he was working in a Footwear Shop on behalf of Janta Marketing, Yavatmal, and was collecting and depositing money on behalf of his employer namely owner/proprietor Shri Avesh Abala of Janta Marketing, and the assessee was nowhere involved in the instant addition, as made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A). Though, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders passed by the authorities below, however, no denial to the fact that the issue Printed from counselvise.com 3 Mohd. Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala ITA no.319 to 321/Nag./2025 involved in the said addition is required to be elaborated and examined to unearth the reality, therefore, this Bench, by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances remanded these appeals for A.Y. 2014–15, 2016–17 and 2017–18 to the file of the learned CIT(A) for decision afresh by considering the claim of the assessee, qua cash deposit / withdrawn by the assessee on behalf of alleged proprietor Shri Avesh Abala of Janta Marketing. It is clarified that onus to prove the genuineness of the claim would be on the assessee only by adducing concrete and cogent evidence. 4. In the result, all the assessee’s appeals for A.Y. 2014–15, 2016– 17 and 2017–18 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025 Sd/- N.K. CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 22/09/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur Printed from counselvise.com "