Non-Compliance Due to Unawareness of Proceedings: ITAT Remands ₹28.71 Lakh Unexplained Cash Deposit Addition u/s 69A to CIT(A) [Read Order]
The Tribunal remanded the addition of Rs. 20.44 lakh under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits to the CIT(A) due to non-appearance and potential unawareness of proceedings.
![Non-Compliance Due to Unawareness of Proceedings: ITAT Remands ₹28.71 Lakh Unexplained Cash Deposit Addition u/s 69A to CIT(A) [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/22/2067557-unexplained-deposit-taxscan.webp "Non-Compliance Due to Unawareness of Proceedings: ITAT Remands ₹28.71 Lakh Unexplained Cash Deposit Addition u/s 69A to CIT(A) [Read Order]")
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication in a case involving an addition of Rs. 20.44 lakh as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Gajanan Jagannath Kalbhor...
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication in a case involving an addition of Rs. 20.44 lakh as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Gajanan Jagannath Kalbhor (assessee), an individual did not file his return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. Based on information available with the Income Tax Department, the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 20.44 lakh in his bank account during the relevant period.
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and completed the assessment ex parte by treating the cash deposits as unexplained under Section 69A and adding them to the assessee's income.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the assessee appealed to the NFA. The NFAC upheld the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT.
The single-member bench comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had not appeared, possibly due to unawareness or issues with communication of notices.
The bench observed that it was appropriate to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present his case on merits considering the material on record.
The bench noted that effective communication had been hindered and directed the assessee to furnish updated email address and contact details to the Department for notices through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal. It further advised the assessee to exercise due diligence and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded all issues raised in the appeal to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce evidence and documents in support.
The CIT(A) was empowered to seek a remand report from the Jurisdictional AO if required and to pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
