TALHA KHAN,MOHALLA AFGANAN PO AMROHA V. ADDL.JT.DY.ACIT.NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

ITA 3419/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Talha Khan, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 1,14,57,570 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was deposited in bank accounts by way of cash. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appellant's appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the handling of the appellant's case and decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31652 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIBHU GUPTA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 148; 144; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3419/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2017-18 TALHA KHAN, MOHALLA AFGANAN PO AMROHA, AMROHA-244221 UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: EJSPK7379K) VS. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. Vibhu Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 13.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 18.11.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 14.3.2024, relating to assessment year 2017- 18 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 2 | P a g e 3(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs, 1,14,57,570/- made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act, 1961. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee That it is fact on record that appellant filed return of income along with audit report in form 3CB and 3CD on 26.4.2021 on IT portal in compliance of notice under section 148 dated 30.3.3021 and the AO has mentioned reply of appellant in his assessment order dated 29.3.2022 in para no. 4 \"however, the assessee replied on one instance dated 22.12.2021 that we have filed the ITR for AY 2017-18 on 26.4.2021 verified with DSC and submitted a copy of ITR-V.\" 4(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,14,57,570/- made by AO on account of cash receipts. (ii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and being admitted fact on record, the AO erred in passing the assessment order u/s, 147/144 of the IT Act without appreciating written submission dated 22.12.2021 along with ITR and audit report 3CB and 3CD dated 26.04.2021. (iii) That the disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the explanation given by the assessee in this regard. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in iaw and being admitted fact on record, the AO has wrongly presumed cash deposits of Rs. 1,14,57,570 as deemed concealed or unexplained income under section 69A/115BBE through net taking congnizance of duly filed ITR and final audited accounts in shape of form 3CB and 3CD wherein all cash deposits in trade current accounts are part of 3 | P a g e final accounts. Therefore being part of audited final accounts, business transactions, explained nature and sources, addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 1,14,57,570 in total income of appellant is void and invalid. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on fad and in law in passing the order without providing adequate opportunity of being hear in gross violation of principle of natural justice. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and being admitted fact on record, the AO has wrongly issued penalty show cause and other notices und section 271F, 271A ; 271B, 271 AAC[1], 272A[1][d] and wrongly assessed income and the head from other sources in place of business income. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed that assessee is not well versed with the tax laws and proceedings, hence, it is prayed that delay in dispute may kindly be condoned. Upon hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the records, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute is condoned. 3. In this case, AO passed the order u/s. 144 of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 1,14,57,570/- being unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act which was deposited in bank by way of cash. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that due to ignorance of consequences, assessee has not been able to comply with the notices and properly canvass the case before the revenue authorities. Hence, he pleaded that an opportunity may be given to the 4 | P a g e assessee to properly canvass his case before the AO. Ld. DR did not object the aforesaid proposition. 4.1 After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18/11/2024. Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRB Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "