AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 05/07/2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:-
“2.Facts of the Case:- The assessee filed its return of income on 22.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,39,83,700/-, which was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.08.2018. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued on 28.08.2019, 27.09.2019 and 13.11.2019, but the assessee failed to comply with the same. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed cash deposits aggregating to Rs.1,53,11,000/-in various bank accounts during the demonetisation period (08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). A final show cause notice was issued on 15.12.2019, to which the assessee filed a reply on 19.12.2019 which was not found acceptable. On verification of bank information obtained under section 133(6), the Assessing Officer observed cash deposits of Rs. 1,53,11,000/- in the assessee’s bank accounts, and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation regarding the source of such deposits, treated the same as unexplained money under section 68/69A and brought it to tax under section 115BBE, thereby assessing the total income at Rs. 3,92,94,700/-.”
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 20/12/2019, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on 04/09/2025 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 04/09/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the documents produced by the Assessee to substantiate its claim, however, both the authorities have ignored by the various documents produced by the Assessee and made/confirmed the additions, in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the authorities below have considered the documents and passed t he respective orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the specific case of the Assessee that the documents produced by the Assessee have not been considered by the authorities below and made/confirmed the addition by the respective authorities. The Assessee has also filed the Paper Book before us to substantiate its claim. In view of the above, without commenting the merits of the case andin the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and also taken into consideration all the documents produced by the Assessee while passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.
In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.