SRI RAM PUJAN JAISWAL FORMERLY KNOWN AS RAM PUJAN GUPTA,HOWRAH V. ACIT, CIRCLE - 47, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1172/KOL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sri Ram Pujan Jaiswal against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed the addition of Rs.73,17,300 to the assessee's income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to alleged cash deposits in his bank account during the demonetization period. The AO had initially made this addition following a scrutiny assessment under section 144, as the assessee failed to comply with notices. The CIT(A) upheld this addition after the assessee also failed to appear on multiple occasions. However, the ITAT found discrepancies in the actual amount deposited and restored the case to the AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33041 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADIP KUMAR BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: ARYA DAS; ANIBARYA DAS; ARS
• Section: 144; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM] I.T.A. No. 1172/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Ram Pujan Jaiswal (formerly known as Ram Pujan Gupta) 121, Girish Ghosh Road, Liluah, Howrah-711204. (PAN: AGSPG0753E) Vs. ACIT, Circle-47, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 29.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2024 For the Appellant Shri Arya Das & Shri Anibarya Das, ARs For the Respondent Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 08.01.2024 for AY 2017-18 arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by ACIT, Circle-47, Kolkata dated 18.12.2019. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 74 days in filing this appeal. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked to explain the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Authorized Representative of the assessee Shri Arindam Das ailing from several ailments and was admitted into the hospital who was the tax consultant of the assessee and was looking after all these matters. Even for filing the appeal the Tax Consultant gave his own e-mail address being [e-mail] as well as his phone number. The said counsel for the assessee passed away after very prolonged illness and hence, the assessee was not communicated about the appellate order having been passed. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, left the issue of condonation upon the wisdom of the Bench. 2 ITA No. 1172/Kol/2024 Sri Ram Pujan Jaiswal, AY 2017-18 3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record including the condonation petition along with the death certificate and medical records of Apollo Clinic, we find that the delay is for genuine reasons and accordingly, the same is condoned. 4. The only issue challenged by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.73,17,300/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act on account of cash deposits into the savings bank account of the assessee bearing no. 0459053000105331 with South Indian Bank, Don Bosco, Liluah branch during the year. 5. Brief facts are that the assessee filed his return of income on 06.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.10,55,820/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny for the reason that assessee has deposited huge cash during demonetization period. Accordingly, notice was issued and served upon the assessee. However, the assessee did not comply with the said notice. The AO called for the information from the bank and from the information collected from the bank, the AO found that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.73,17,300/- in the above bank account and finally when the assessee failed to turn up, the addition was made u/s. 68 of the Act in the assessment framed u/s. 144 of the Act dated 18.12.2019. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee when the assessee failed to appear on the four occasions viz., 22.01.2021, 14.11.2023, 07.12.2023 and 02.01.2024. 7. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material available on record as placed before us including bank statement as referred to by the AO in the assessment order, we find that during the year the assessee has only deposited cash to the tune of Rs.29,000/- on two occasions, first on 28.06.2016 Rs. 15,000/- and secondly on 30.03.2017 Rs.14,000/-. Copy of the bank statement is available at pages 6 to 8 of the paper book. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the same statement was relied by the AO for making the addition and, therefore, the addition has been made on the basis of wrong facts by the AO. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for restoration of this appeal to the file of the AO so 3 ITA No. 1172/Kol/2024 Sri Ram Pujan Jaiswal, AY 2017-18 that information could be verified by the AO and assessment could be made de novo. Ld. DR did not object to the restoration of this appeal as there was a contradictory finding by the AO. After perusing the bank account of the assessee in which Rs.73,17,300/- was alleged to be deposited by the assessee in cash, we find that only cash deposit was to the tune of Rs.29,000/- during the year on two occasions, the details whereof is given above. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on the basis of information furnished by the bank was factually incorrect and needs to be verified at the level of the AO. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the AO by setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to do de novo assessment. Needless to say that the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee is only Rs. 29,000/- which appears to be correct then, no addition is to be made. With this observation, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th October, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Rajesh Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 30th October, 2024 JD, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant– Sri Ram Pujan Jaiswal 2. Respondent – ACIT, Circle-47, Kolkata. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata, True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata "