MR ABHISHEK RAESH RAIKAR,MARGAO V. ITO, WARD - 1, MARGAO

ITA 15/PAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Abhishek Ramesh Raikar, who is engaged in the jewelry business and filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which sustained an addition of Rs. 20,78,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits in his bank accounts. The appeal was initially delayed by 96 days, for which a condonation application was accepted. The primary issues in the appeal were the validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) and the adequacy of the opportunity of hearing provided, as well as the sustenance of the addition under section 69A. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's submissions and evidence, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774326 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJU THAKUR.
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Principle of natural justice; Validity of assessment
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos. 15/PAN/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Abhishek Ramesh Raikar, Shop.no.7, Cruz Mansion, Margao-403601, Goa Vs . ITO-Ward-1, Blessings Pioneer complex, Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. PAN .No. AGXPR2694C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee by None(Letter dt 8-9-2025) Revenue by Smt Manju Thakur. Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the NFAC Delhi/CIT (A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, it was found that there is a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) on Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA. No. 15/PAN 2024. Abhishek Ramesh Raikar.. validity of issue of notice u/sec143(2) of the Act and also no sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided. And the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition u/sec 69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in jewellery business. The assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 03.11.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.5,75,340/-. The assessee has also filed the revised return of income on 9.08.2018. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return of income filed. The assesse has filed the details/ information and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions/details and find that there are cash deposits during the F.Y.2016-17 in the bank accounts aggregating to Rs.20,78,000/- and the assessee was asked to explain the sources of deposits and also a show cause notice was issued, and there was a compliance vide letter dated 20- 12-2019 explaining sources and withdrawals by the assessee in the partnership firm. Whereas the A.O. has dealt on the submissions and was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of section 69A of the Act and made addition of unexplained money of Rs.20,78,000/- and assessed the total income of Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA. No. 15/PAN 2024. Abhishek Ramesh Raikar.. Rs.26,53,340/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but has sustained the addition u/sec69A of the A.O and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribuna 5. Heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue in the grounds of appeal of the assessee that that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the validity of assessment proceedings and sustaining the addition u/sec69A of the Act without providing proper opportunity and overlooking the facts and material evidences. The assesse has filed all the details before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) has not considered the documents and information supporting the claim of the assesse. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has dealt on the findings of the AO and has not considered the submissions/evidences of the assesse filed in the proceedings and has not allowed the grounds of appeal. Therefore, considering the overall facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing and accordingly restore the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits and the CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA. No. 15/PAN 2024. Abhishek Ramesh Raikar.. shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.09.2025. -S/d- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji Dated: 10/09/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Panaji Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA. No. 15/PAN 2024. Abhishek Ramesh Raikar.. Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member PS 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. PS 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed Printed from counselvise.com "