Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
13-11-2024
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
K
Next Hearing Date
11-11-2024
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
27-06-2024
Judgement Text
" \n \nIN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” \nBENCH, MUMBAI \nBEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER \n& \nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \n \nITA No.3352/MUM/2024 \n(A.Y. 2017-18) \n \n \nRajkishore \nBalkishan \nManiyar \n801/802, \nShivtapi \nApartment, H Goregaonkar \nRoad, Grant Road, Mumbai \n400 007, Maharashtra \nv/s. \nबनाम \nIncome Tax Officer, Ward – \n1(2)(4), \nAaykar \nBhavan, \nMK Road, Mumbai 400 020 \nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./\nPAN/GIR No: AACPM9799E \nAppellant/अपीलार्थी \n .. \nRespondent/प्रतिवादी \n \nAppellant by : \nNone \nRespondent by : \nShri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR \n \n \nDate of Hearing \n 11.11.2024 \nDate of Pronouncement \n 13.11.2024 \n \nआदेश / O R D E R \n \nPER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- \n \n \n \nThe present appeal arising from the appellate order dated \n25.04.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned \nCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, \nDelhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order \npassed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \n“Act”] dated 30.12.2019 as passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-\n1(2)(4), Mumbai for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. \n\nP a g e | 2 \n \n ITA No. 3352/Mum/2024 \nA.Y. 2017-18 \n Rajkishore Balkishan Maniyar \n \n \n \n2. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has agitated addition of Rs. 14.95 \nlakhs being cash deposit as unexplained money. It is contended that \nthe Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition. \n3. Facts of the case are that in this case it was informed to the Ld. AO that \nduring demonetisation period the assessee had deposited demonetized \ncurrency of Rs. 15,18,000/- in the bank account of M/s Ganpati \nTraders which is stated to the partnership firm, wherein, the assessee is \none of the partners. However, it was found that one of the partners of \nthe firm, the assessee had admitted that the firm was formed on \n20.02.2014 and dissolved on 11.05.2014 in the same year. But, this \ninformation was not given to the bank. This firm continued to function \nas proprietorship concern of assessee and the bank account was \nmaintained with the bank as a partnership firm with different PAN. \nRegarding the source of this cash deposit it was claimed before the Ld. \nAssessing Officer that the source was withdrawn from the earlier \nparties. The reply as submitted for the Ld. Assessing Officer is \nreproduced as below:- \n“ a. I withdraw cash as per my business requirements. \n \n b. I also maintain a minimum buffer cash for emergency \nrequirements of the business and personal nature. \n\nP a g e | 3 \n \n ITA No. 3352/Mum/2024 \nA.Y. 2017-18 \n Rajkishore Balkishan Maniyar \n \n \n \nc. My business had a turnover of approximately 57.48 crores in FY \n2014-15, 18.87 crores in FY 2015-16 and Rs. 15.40 crores in FY 2016-\n17. \nd. My cash balance on 31/03/2015 was Rs. 20.10 lakhs and on \n31/03/2016 was Rs. 8.60 lakhs. Holding cash on hand is no crime and \nI have bonafide reasons for the same. \ne. I have to maintain such balances for expenses, business and \npersonal. \n Personal: I also have senior citizen parents, my father is 80 years old \nand my mother is 75 years old. As you are aware that any medical \nemergency may arise at their age or as a matter of fact to me, my \nwife, or my children. Coming from a family of conservative thoughts, \nwe always have cash on hand from 10 lakhs to 20 lakhs for both \nbusiness or personal expenses. \n \nBusiness: I need cash expenses for day to day activities and general \nconveyance expenditure on account of my sheer sales turnover. I have \nbeen maintaining cash on hand at this level for the last so many years \nwithout any questions. \nf. As per your notice, you have stated that since my returns for AY \n2016-17 and 2017-18 were filed in March 2018, the opening cash \nbalance for FY 2016-17 is in doubt. I draw your attention to the \n\nP a g e | 4 \n \n ITA No. 3352/Mum/2024 \nA.Y. 2017-18 \n Rajkishore Balkishan Maniyar \n \n \n \nbalance sheet for 31/03/2015 attached herewith where the cash \nbalance is Rs. 20.10 lakhs and the said return is filed on 31/10/2015. \nThis itself sets a precedent of cash balance being maintained in the \nregion of 10 to 20 lakhs. Thus now there should be no doubt about the \ngenuineness of the opening balance of cash and the pattern of cash \nbalance, cash withdrawal and expenses. \ng. On the 8th November, 2017 the government announced \ndemonetization of high value currency notes. The government gave a \nwindow from 8th November, 2017 to 31st December, 2017 to deposit all \ncash on hand comprising of high value of currency notes. When a lot \nof people were following bad practices I deposited all the cash I had in \nhigh value currency notes in the bank account. The government had \npromised no person with legit money will be troubled, questioned or \nharassed. I have always been a bonafide tax payer and followed the \nlaws just like I did in the demonetization period. This notice is exactly \nwhat the government had promised will not happen. \nh. I thus request you to abide by the government promises and not \ntrouble me for depositing cash as directed by the government. \ni. I also see that the cash deposited of Rs. 15,18,000/- is genuine \nand explained and raise my strongest objection to addition of the \n\nP a g e | 5 \n \n ITA No. 3352/Mum/2024 \nA.Y. 2017-18 \n Rajkishore Balkishan Maniyar \n \n \n \nsame as unexplained money under section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and \nthe same been taxed as per the Section 115BBA of the said Act.” \n4. \nIt was also further submitted that the assessee opened an account in \nthe name of partnership firm M/s Ganpati Traders with himself and \nemployees as partners. The partnership firm was dissolved on \n11.05.2014 and the firm was converted to sole partnership of the \nassessee with different PAN. \n5. \nThe Ld. AO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee by \nholding that the said bank account was not maintained in the name \nof the assessee. Besides, he had not filed the returns for Assessment \nYears 2016-17 and 2017-18 in 27.03.2018. He failed to explain the \ndelay in filing of the returns and therefore, opening cash balance of \nearlier order for assessment year 2017-18 was not beyond doubt. \nBesides the assessee failed to explain the nature of cash expenses \nclaimed to be made from cash withdrawn from the bank credited as \nno business man will withdraw the cash from the bank account only \nto deposit the cash in the account, one fine day rather than spending \nit. Consequently, he invoked the provisions under section 69A of the \nAct, treating impugned amount of Rs. 14,95,000/- as unexplained \nmoney of the assessee. \n\nP a g e | 6 \n \n ITA No. 3352/Mum/2024 \nA.Y. 2017-18 \n Rajkishore Balkishan Maniyar \n \n \n \n6. \nIt may be mentioned here that the Ld. CIT(A), while upholding the \naddition, has made detailed discussion from para 6.2 of the \nAppellate Order. In the para 6.7 he has finally observed that the \nassessee failed to bring on record incredible evidence or details \nwhatsoever, in support of the grounds raised in the appeal, so as to \ncontrovert, the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer. He has also \nstated that the assessee either did not respond to notice issued u/s \n250 of the Act or responded partly but failed to discharge the onus to \nexplain the nature and source of the deposits leading in to dismissal \nof the appeal filed. \n7. \nWe have duly considered all the relevant facts of the case. When the \ncase was called out, it was not represented by anyone. The Ld. Sr. DR \nrelied upon the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the \nassessee did not properly avail the opportunity of hearing before the \nappellate authority. However, there appears to be proper compliance \nbefore the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, on \naccount of the fact that the assessee failed to furnish the relevant \nevidences in support of the grounds of appeal. We observe that no \nsubstantive hearing could take place. Therefore, consider it \nappropriate to remand the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) allowing him \n\nP a g e | 7 \n \n ITA No. 3352/Mum/2024 \nA.Y. 2017-18 \n Rajkishore Balkishan Maniyar \n \n \n \nopportunity of hearing and to furnish relevant evidences in support \nof its grounds of appeal. \n8. \nThe Ld. Sr. DR has not objected to the proposed remand in the \ncourse of hearing. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair-play \nthe appeal is set aside and sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh \norder after allowing one final opportunity of hearing to the assessee. \n9. \nIn view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal is therefore, \nallowed for the statistical balances. \nOrder pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2024. \n \n \n Sd/- \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSd/- \n BEENA PILLAI \n PRABHASH SHANKAR \n(न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) \n(लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) \n \n \n \n \n \nPlace: म ुंबई/Mumbai \nददनाुंक /Date 13.11.2024 \nLubhna Shaikh / Steno \n \n \nआदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : \n \n1. \nअपीलार्थी / The Appellant \n2. \nप्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. \n3. \nआयकर आयुक्त / CIT \n4. \nविभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, \nMumbai \n5. \nगार्ड फाईल / Guard file. \n \n \n \n\nP a g e | 8 \n \n ITA No. 3352/Mum/2024 \nA.Y. 2017-18 \n Rajkishore Balkishan Maniyar \n \n \n \nसत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// \n \nआदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, \n \n \n \n \n उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) \nआयकर अिीलीय अयधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, \nMumbai. \n"
