MR. ALLI USMAN AGA,BICHOLIM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, PANAJI

ITA 77/PAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Alli Usman Aga, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) Bengaluru, which sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The AO had added Rs. 18,00,000 to the assessee's income, which was allegedly deposited in cash during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's explanations and evidence regarding the source of the cash deposits, prompting the decision to remand the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32353 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA REDDY.
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A. Nos. 77/PAN/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Alli Usman Aga, H.no.093, Gokul Wadi Sanquelim,Noth Goa, Bicholim-403505, Goa. Vs . ITO, International Tax Ward,Pundalik Niwas, Cortim, Panaji-403001, Goa. . PAN .No. AGNPA7597F (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri. Narendra Reddy. Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing 06.01.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2025 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of CIT(A) Bengaluru passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 2 ITA. No. 77/PAN/2024 Alli Usman Aga. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse is a NRI and filed the return of income on 5-03-2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.20,400/- The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data, found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank accounts during the demonetization period and the case was selected for limited scrutiny and further the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued. And there was compliance by the assesse. Whereas the A.O found that the assesse has made the cash deposits of Rs.18,00,000/- in the Corporation Bank Bhicholim branch Goa in the F.Y.2016- 17 and explanations were called to substantiate the deposits. And the assessee has filed the explanations mentioning that the cash was withdrawn from Canara bank SB NRE account and after meeting the personal expenditure balance amount was deposited in the Corporation Bank. Whereas as the AO has considered the information and was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of the Act and finally made an addition u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.18,00,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.18,20,400/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 04.12.2019. 3 ITA. No. 77/PAN/2024 Alli Usman Aga. 3. 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 and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and the assessee has filed the submissions and remand report was called from the A.O. But the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record and none appeared on behalf of the assesse. The sole crux of the disputed issues envisaged by the assesse that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition u/s 69A of the Act without providing proper opportunity and overlooking the facts and material evidences. The assesse has filed the all the details before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) has not considered the facts of availability of cash balance with the assessee. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has dealt on the findings of the AO and has considered the submissions of the assessee and has not accepted the evidences. Therefore, we considering the overall facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing and accodingly restore the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits and the CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the 4 ITA. No. 77/PAN/2024 Alli Usman Aga. 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. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (GD PADMAHSHALI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji Dated: 07/01/2025 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 5 ITA. No. 77/PAN/2024 Alli Usman Aga. 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 "