Addition of Rs. 3.53 Crore as Unexplained Income u/s 69A: ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A)'s Order [Read Order]

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concerning the addition of Rs. 3.53 crore as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961.

Shramik Nagri SahkariPatsansthaMaryadit,appellant-assessee, appealed against the order dated  28.09.2024 for the Assessment Year(AY) 2015-16 passed by CIT(A) . The assessee's counsel contended that the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance, as the Chartered Accountant was hospitalized.

Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course - Enroll Now

An affidavit, hospital records, and financial documents were submitted, requesting fresh adjudication. It was also argued that the assessment order listed depositors’ names, contradicting the Rs. 3.53 crore addition as the assessee’s income.

The revenue counsel supported the orders of the Assessing Officer(AO) and CIT(A) but could not explain why deposits listed under individual names were considered the assessee’s income.

Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course - Enroll Now

The two member bench comprising Vinay Bhamore(Judicial Member) and Dr.Dipak P.Ripote(Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had not filed a return for AY 2015-16, leading the AO to issue a notice under section 148 and pass an ex-parte order due to non-compliance. The officer, based on bank statements obtained under section 133(6), treated time deposits of ₹3.53 crore as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act.

Read More: ITAT upholds Addition of Unexplained Income under Section 69A due to Assessee’s Non-Compliance

However, the appellate tribunal noted that the assessment order itself listed individual names against these deposits, indicating that the amounts did not belong to the assessee. Since this was not contested, the tribunal held that the addition was unjustified.

Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course - Enroll Now

It also found that the assessee’s non-compliance before CIT(A) was due to the Chartered Accountant’s hospitalization. Considering these factors, the tribunal set aside CIT(A)’s order and directed a fresh hearing, allowing the assessee to submit relevant documents.

In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates