MR. BALASAHEB BHAGWANTRAO PATIL,OSMANABAD V. ITO, WARD, OSMANABAD, LATUR

ITA 2819/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Balasaheb Bhagwantrao Patil, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld an addition of Rs. 25,00,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee argued that the cash was from a loan received from his brother, which was deposited back after withdrawal for a specific purpose. The CIT(A) did not accept additional evidence provided by the assessee due to procedural non-compliance, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469580 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY DHIVARE
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUVANESH V KANKANI; LD. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER JAO
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 148; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"एस एम सी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"SMC\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2819/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mr. Balasaheb Bhagwantrao Patil, 41 B Patil Nivas, A/P Hadongri Taluka Bhoom, Osmanabad-413501, Maharashtra PAN-ABJPP6358E Vs ITO, Ward, Osmanabad, Latur Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Bhuvanesh V Kankani Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Additional. CIT Date of hearing : 06.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 12.02.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2013- 14 is directed against the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi u/s.250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (herein after also called ‘the Act’) which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 dated 04.12.2017. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is incorrect and not according to the provisions of the Act including section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the additions so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC be kindly deleted and appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the Appeal without granting the opportunity of being heard though Virtual Conference. Accordingly, the order so passed be kindly set aside and Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard. 2 ITA No.2819/PUN/2024 3. Without prejudice to other grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in rejecting the evidences filed before him without intimating the same, and accordingly erred in upholding an incorrect addition. Accordingly, the addition so made be kindly deleted by considering the evidences so filed and Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 4. Without prejudice to other grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act Ld. AO or Ld. CIT(A) be kindly directed to accept the evidences filed and assess the income correctly. Accordingly, Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 5. It is humbly prayed that the Appellant be kindly allowed to file any additional evidences in the interest of justice, if any. 6. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. Based on the information about cash deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the saving bank account held with State Bank of Hyderabad, assessee was issued valid notice u/s 148 of the Act followed by validly serving notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. However the assessee did not file the regular return nor filed return in compliance to return notice u/s 148 of the Act. As a result, best judgement assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 14.12.2017 was passed determining income of the assessee at Rs. 25,00,000/- 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed written submission alongwith additional evidence to demonstrate the source of cash deposited in the bank account. However ld. CIT(A) did not accept the additional evidence as no proper application u/s 46(A) of the Act was filed and accordingly affirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the impugned addition is made for the alleged unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- in financial year 2012-13. Referring to the bank statement of preceding financial year at page 9-10 of the Paper Book, he stated that during preceding year assessee received Rs. 25,00,000/- as loan from his Brother and on 29th February, 2012 Rs. 5,00,000/- and on 21st March, 2012 and 24th March, 2012 Rs. 10,00,000/- each total Rs. 3 ITA No.2819/PUN/2024 25,00,000/- was withdrawn and the assessee was having this withdrawn amount as cash in hand. This loan was taken for boring of Tube well business but somehow the same could not be utilized. Therefore immediately after two months i.e. during May, 2012, Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited as cash out of which Rs. 20,00,000/- was repaid to his Brother. He stated that since source of cash deposit during the year is from the cash withdrawn during the preceding year, therefore no addition is warranted in the hands of assessee. Reference was also made to various documents placed in the Paper Book containing 30 pages including confirmation letter of assessee’s Brother of having given the loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the preceding year and receiving back Rs. 20,00,000/- during the year. On the other hand ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of lower authorities. 6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. The only issue for consideration is regarding unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the bank account of assessee held with State Bank of Hyderabad. 7. I observe that the assessee did not file regular return of income. Even in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act which was duly served on the assessee, again assessee failed to file return. Even assessee did not furnish the details before ld. AO. Though the assessee has filed appeal to ld. CIT(A) and furnished necessary details and evidence to explain the alleged source of cash deposit but failed to file proper application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act rules for admission of additional evidence. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal without dealing with the merits of the case. 8. Before me ld. counsel for the assessee has filed documents in the Paper Book of which one at Paper Book page 30 has been before this Tribunal for the first time. It is also claimed that assessee’s application for video conferencing was not allowed even though the request is still appearing live on the Income Tax Portal. Ld. AR has also referred to the bank statement of 4 ITA No.2819/PUN/2024 current and preceding financial year alongwith confirmation of assesee’s Brother in order to explain the source of alleged cash deposit. Bank statement reveals that in the preceding year assessee received loan from his Brother at Rs. 25,00,000/- and then withdraw amount prior to close of the year and the same cash deposited during the year under appeal. 9. I however notice that before ld. AO, the details were not filed and ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case. I therefore in the interest of justice and being fair to both the Parties deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and direct the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to frame “de-novo” assessment after duly considering all the documents, bank statement and other evidence filed before this Tribunal and then decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing would be granted to assessee by ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjudication unless otherwise for reasonable cause. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 12th day of February, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 12th February, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"SMC\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"SMC\" Bench, Pune. 5 ITA No.2819/PUN/2024 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "