Government of India
Ministry of Finance: Department of Revenue
OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Ward - Jadgalpur,
Behind Jhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur (C.G.)
Email jagdalpur.ito@incometax.gov.in
F.NO: ITO/Ward-Jagdalpur/ITAT/AKD/2024-25 Date: 17/05/2024
To
The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
ITAT, Raipur.
Sir,
Sub: Providing of case records including submission of report on grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee before Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Shri Ashit Kumar Dey,
Jagdalpur, PAN: AJXPD4157D for the A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 in Appellate No. ITA-
127/RPR/2024, ITA – 128/RPR/2024 and ITA -129/RPR/2024 -Reg.
Kindly refer to the above subject.
Brief fact of the case:-
A.Y. 2009-10:- The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of Trading of
Fish. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 07/08/2009 showing its
income at Rs.1,50,000/-. The assessment for A.Y.2009-10 was completed u/s 144 vide order
dated 26/12/2011 determining the total income at Rs. 88,74,50/-. The assessing officer made
additions of Rs. 86,74,500/- on account of cash deposited by the assessee of Rs. 86,74,500/-
in his bank account.
A.Y. 2010-11:- The assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on
30.04.2010 declaring its income at Rs. 1,57,600/-. The assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 was
completed u/s 147/144 vide order dated 10.02.2016 determining the total income at Rs.
1,08,93,600/-. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 1,07,36,000/- on account of cash
deposited by the assessee in his saving bank account no. 108505500007 maintained at ICICI
Bank, Jagdalpur.
The fact cannot be denied that, Shri Ashit Kumar Dey has deposited cash of Rs.
86,74,500/- in A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 1,08,93,600/- in A.Y. 2010-11 in his SBI bank account ,
Bastar and ICICI Bank, Jagdalpur respectively. Further, the said amounts has been credited
over the entire period of the year under consideration in his SBI bank account and ICICI Bank
respectively.
Now, coming to various contentions raised by the assessee in the appeal, it is
submitted as under:
Para 2 (i)1 : That the contents of this Para are disputed and hence denied except for what is
matter of record or to the extent expressly admitted. It is submitted that, contention of the
assessee that, the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not admitting the appeal without adhering to the
provisions of section 249(3) of the IT Act, 1961 is entirely false.
It is respectfully submitted that the provisions of Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1961, delineate regarding Form of Appeal and Limitation. In contrast, the provision of Section
249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are reproduced herein below:-
249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the
prescribed manner.
(2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date, that is to say,—
(a) where the appeal relates to any tax deducted under sub-section (1) of section-195, the date of
payment of the tax, or
(b) where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand
relating to the assessment or penalty :
[Provided that, where an application has been made under section-146 for re-opening an assessment,
the period from the date on which the application is made to the date on which the order passed on the
application is served on the assessee shall be excluded, or]
(c) in any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served.
(3) The Appellate Assistant Commissioner 23[or, as the case may be, the Commissioner
(Appeals)] may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the
appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.
(4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal,—
(a) where a return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income
returned by him ; or
(b) where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the
amount of advance tax which was payable by him.
From the above it is clear that, The CIT(A), NFAC bears the responsibility of admitting
or not admitting and ascertaining whether an appeal meets the criteria under the provisions
delineated in the Income Tax Act, irrespective of the conclusions drawn by other authorities in
disparate contexts.
Para 2 (i)(2) & 2(i)(3) : That the contents of Para 2(i)(2) and 2(i)(3) are incorrect,
misconceived and emphatically denied in entirety . It is submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeal)
has approached the said case with utmost professionalism and diligence. The proceedings
have been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the
rules thereunder. The Ld. CIT (A) has carefully examined the relevant facts and
circumstances, adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is further pertinent to mention
that the purpose of these proceedings is to examine the alleged transaction and determine its
legality. The AO has taken into account the relevant facts, records, and evidence before
initiating the proceedings. It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has diligently examined
the available evidence and has sufficiently discharged the initial burden of proof placed on
him by bringing the evidence on record and it is the assessee who have failed to discharge the
burden of proof which is placed on them as per the various provisions of the Indian Evidence
Act. It is further submitted that the Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act casts burden upon the
AO to prove the transaction as unexplained which has been sufficiently proved by the AO and
now the reverse burden lies upon the assessee to disprove the case of Initiating officer. Herein
itself it would be relevant to submit that the burden of proof in the adjudication proceedings
is based upon the principles of preponderance of probabilities and not on the principles of
beyond reasonable doubt. Section 101 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
“101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must
prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”
In the instant case, the assessee has not offered any explanation in this regard with
respect to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the said case, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the
Act was issued on 26.12.2011 and served upon the assessee along with demand notice and
assessment order fixing the case for hearing on 05.01.2012. In response no compliance was
made by the assessee. Against, the above, assessee filed appeal before the Hon’ble CIT (A),
Raipur. Vide order appeal no. 483/11-12 dated 30.11.2015, the CIT (A), raipur dismissed the
appeal filed by the assessee. Accordingly, last opportunity was given by issue of Penalty
notice u/s 271(1)(c) by RPAD on 05.07.2016 and served upon the assessee on 12.07.2016
fixing the case for hearing on 15.07.2016. Nobody attended in reponse to this notice.
Hence, the CIT (A), NFAC has rightly upholded the penalty order thereby confirming the
imposition of penalty of Rs. 29,10,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961.
Para 2(ii)(1): That the contents of this Para are already discussed in Para 2(i)1 and therefore
needs no reply.
Para 2(ii)(2) to 2(ii)(4):- That the contents of Para 2(ii)(2) and 2(ii)(3) are incorrect,
misconceived and emphatically denied in entirety . It is submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeal)
has approached the said case with utmost professionalism and diligence. The proceedings
have been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the
rules thereunder. The Ld. CIT (A) has carefully examined the relevant facts and
circumstances, adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is further pertinent to mention
that the purpose of these proceedings is to examine the alleged transaction and determine its
legality. The AO has taken into account the relevant facts, records, and evidence before
initiating the proceedings. It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has diligently examined
the available evidence and has sufficiently discharged the initial burden of proof placed on
him by bringing the evidence on record and it is the assessee who have failed to discharge the
burden of proof which is placed on them as per the various provisions of the Indian Evidence
Act. It is further submitted that the Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act casts burden upon the
AO to prove the transaction as unexplained which has been sufficiently proved by the AO and
now the reverse burden lies upon the assessee to disprove the case of Initiating officer. Herein
itself it would be relevant to submit that the burden of proof in the adjudication proceedings
is based upon the principles of preponderance of probabilities and not on the principles of
beyond reasonable doubt. Section 101 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
“101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must
prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”
In the instant case, the assessment was completed on 10.02.2016 u/s 147/ 144 of the
Act, as it was within six years from the year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee
claim is false and molded one and the CIT (A), NFAC has rightly confirmed the initiation of re-
assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the IT Act, 1961.
With respect to proper service of statutory notices, the assessee has not offered any
explanation in this regard with respect to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act which was served on
the assessee, fixing the case for hearing on 22.05.2015. Subsequently, Show cause notices
were issued from time to time and served on the assessee fixing the case for hearing i.e. notice
dated 14.07.2015 and 14.12.2015 which remained unresponsive. Though all notices issued
by this office were received by him from time to time, however neither the assessee nor his
counsel attended or furnished any reply so as to justify the source of large cash deposit in his
saving bank account. Looking into the non-cooperative attitude of assessee, the AO
completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961 as per the documents
available on records. Hence, the CIT (A), NFAC has rightly confirmed the assessment order
thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 1,07,36,000/- as income from undisclosed sources,
added u/s 68 r.w.s 69A of the IT Act, 1961.
Para 2(iii)(1): That the contents of this Para are already discussed in Para 2(i)1 and therefore
needs no reply.
Para 2 (iii)(2) & 2(iii)(3) : That the contents of Para 2(iii)(2) and 2(iii)(3) are incorrect and
emphatically denied in entirety. It is submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has approached the
said case with utmost professionalism and diligence. The proceedings have been conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the rules thereunder. The Ld.
CIT (A) has carefully examined the relevant facts and circumstances, adhering to the
principles of natural justice. It is further pertinent to mention that the purpose of these
proceedings is to examine the alleged transaction and determine its legality. The AO has taken
into account the relevant facts, records, and evidence before initiating the proceedings. It is
further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has diligently examined the available evidence and has
sufficiently discharged the initial burden of proof placed on him by bringing the evidence on
record and it is the assessee who have failed to discharge the burden of proof which is placed
on them as per the various provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that
the Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act casts burden upon the AO to prove the transaction as
unexplained which has been sufficiently proved by the AO and now the reverse burden lies
upon the assessee to disprove the case of Initiating officer. Herein itself it would be relevant to
submit that the burden of proof in the adjudication proceedings is based upon the principles
of preponderance of probabilities and not on the principles of beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 101 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
“101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must
prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”
In the instant case, the assessee has not offered any explanation in this regard with
respect to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the said case, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) ws
issued by RPAD on 10.02.2016 and served on the assessee fixing the case for hearing on
29.02.2016. As the assessee has not complied with the notice, last opportunity was given by
issue of penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) by RPAD on 05.05.2016 fixing the case for hearing on
16.05.2016. From the said facts, it is clear that the assessee has nothing to say with regard to
penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the then AO levied a
minimum penalty of Rs. 32,70,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the CIT (A), NFAC has
rightly upholded the penalty order thereby confirming the imposition of penalty of Rs.
32,70,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961.
3. Submitted for your kind consideration and necessary action as per provisions of the IT
Act, 1961.
Encl: Case Record (02 Vol) Yours faithfully,
(K K Purohit)
Income Tax Officer
Ward Jagdalpur
Copy to: The Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Raipur for kind information.
Income Tax Officer
Ward Jagdalpur
Government of India
Ministry of Finance: Department of Revenue
OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Ward - Jadgalpur,
Behind Jhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur (C.G.)
Email jagdalpur.ito@incometax.gov.in
F.NO: ITO/Ward-Jagdalpur/ITAT/RG/2024-25 Date: 02/04/2024
To
The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
ITAT, Raipur.
Sir,
Sub: Providing of case records including submission of report on grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee before Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Shri Rajesh Gupta, Jagdalpur,
PAN: AHOPG7087J for the A.Y. 2017-18 in Appellate No. ITA-56/RPR/2024 -Reg.
Kindly refer to the above subject.
The fact cannot be denied that, Shri Rajesh Gupta has deposited cash of Rs.
14,50,000/- in denomination of banned currency during demonetization period of F.Y. 2016-
17 in his SBI bank account no. 32867328675. Further, total amount of Rs. 1,10,85,850/-
has been credited over the entire period of the year under consideration in his SBI bank
account.
Now, coming to various contentions raised by the assessee in the appeal, it is
submitted as under:
Para 2.1: That the contents of this Para are disputed and hence denied except for what is
matter of record or to the extent expressly admitted. It is submitted that, contention of the
assessee that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the IT Act
through notice issued on 26.08.2018 u/s 148 of the Act during pendency of proceedings
initiated through notice issued on 12.03.2018 u/s 142 of the Act is illegal and without
jurisdiction is entirely false and misconceived. It may be highlighted here that, “On the basis
of data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under
‘Operation Clean Money’, the Income Tax Department gathered a list of assessees who had
deposited substantial cash in bank account(s) during the demonetization period (9 th November
2016 to 30th December 2016), but have not filed Income Tax Return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act,
for the A.Y. 2017-18.
The above data revealed that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 14,50,000/-
during the demonetization period, but has not filed ITR for the A.Y. 2017-18 u/s 139(1) of the
Act, despite having taxable income during the year under consideration. Hence, a notice u/s
142(1) (i) was issued on 12.03.20108 requesting the assessee to prepare a true and correct
return of income u/s 142(1) for A.Y. 2017-18 and to file on before 31.03.2018. However, the
assessee failed to furnish return of income in response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act.
In absence of return of income, the source of cash deposits was unverifiable.
As the assessee did not comply with the notice u/s 142(1)(i), dated 12.03.2018,
even the cash deposited was much above the maximum amount not chargeable to tax for the
relevant A.Y. Thus in absence of return of income the source of cash deposit remained
unexplained. Therefore, there was strong reason that the income of Rs. 14,50,000/- has
escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the case was
reopened under section 147 of the Act. Consequently, a notice u/s 148 was issued to the
assessee on 26.08.2018 through ITBA system and in response to it, the assessee did not
comply with the same and did not file return of income u/s 148 of the Act. Further, with
respect to Jurisdictional territory over the assessee the copy of jurisdiction on PAN is enclosed
in the case record, which clearly highlights that the PAN has been under the ITO, Ward
Jagdalpur during the assessment proceedings and till date, it is still under the undersigned’s
jurisdiction.
Para 2.1.2 to 2.1.4: That the contents of this Para are incorrect, and specifically denied. It
is submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has approached the said case with utmost
professionalism and diligence. The proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the
provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the rules thereunder. The Ld. CIT (A) has carefully
examined the relevant facts and circumstances, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
It is further pertinent to mention that the purpose of these proceedings is to examine the
alleged transaction and determine its legality. The AO has taken into account the relevant
facts, records, and evidence before initiating the proceedings. It is further submitted that the
Ld. CIT (A) has diligently examined the available evidence and has sufficiently discharged the
initial burden of proof placed on him by bringing the evidence on record and it is the assessee
who have failed to discharge the burden of proof which is placed on them as per the various
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the Section 101 of Indian
Evidence Act casts burden upon the AO to prove the transaction as unexplained which has
been sufficiently proved by the AO and now the reverse burden lies upon the assessee to
disprove the case of Initiating officer. Herein itself it would be relevant to submit that the
burden of proof in the adjudication proceedings is based upon the principles of
preponderance of probabilities and not on the principles of beyond reasonable doubt. Section
101 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
“101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must
prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”
In the instant case, the assessee has not offered any explanation in this regard. Hence,
the value of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 6,13,228/- is treated as unexplained money u/s
69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and is taxed u/s 115BBE of the
Act at the applicable rate and surcharge. Further, the AO after looking into the business
activity and non-filing of return by the assessee, has rightly computed the business income of
the assessee at the rate of 8% of the remaining turnover at Rs. 8,37,810/- (8% of
1,04,72,622/-) and added to the total income of the assessee as income from business.
3. Submitted for your kind consideration and necessary action as per provisions of the IT
Act, 1961.
Encl: Case Record (01 Vol) Yours faithfully,
(K K Purohit)
Income Tax Officer
Ward Jagdalpur
Copy to: The Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Raipur for kind information.
Income Tax Officer
Ward Jagdalpur
Government of India
Ministry of Finance: Department of Revenue
OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Ward - Jadgalpur,
Behind Jhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur (C.G.)
Email jagdalpur.ito@incometax.gov.in
F.NO: ITO/Ward-Jagdalpur/ITAT/SD/2024-25 Date: 02/04/2024
To
The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
ITAT, Raipur.
Sir,
Sub: Providing of case records including submission of report on grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee before Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Shri Satadal Devnath,
Pakhanjur, Kanker, PAN: AQOPD5419L for the A.Y. 2017-18 in Appellate No.
ITA-05/RPR/2024 -Reg.
Kindly refer to the above subject.
The fact cannot be denied that, Shri Satadal Devnath has deposited cash of Rs.
11,25,000/- in Dena Bank and Rs. 97,47,000/- in SBI. The appellant filed his return of
income on 14.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 10,17,250/-. The case was selected for
complete scrutiny through CASS based on large cash deposits during Demonetization period
and abnormal increase in sales/ turnover.
Now, coming to various contentions raised by the assessee in the appeal, it is
submitted as under:
Para 2.1: That the contents of this Para are disputed and hence denied except for what is
matter of record or to the extent expressly admitted. It is submitted that, contention of the
assessee that the assessment was made u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2019 by ITO kanker would be
invalid as he was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to make assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 as
returned income was Rs. 10,17,250/- and as per CBDT instruction No. 1/2011 dated
31.1.2011 and 6/2011 dated 8.04.2011 assessment made u/s 143(3) by non jurisdiction AO
would be invalid and liable to be quashed is devoid of merits.
The CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31.1.2011 provides new monetary limits in
Mufassil areas which was fixed for selecting the case under scrutiny. Accordingly the ITOs
were empowered to take up the case up to the income of Rs. 15 lacs for non-corporate
assessee and Rs. 20 lacs for corporate assessees. It is pertinent to mention here that the
assessee's return income was Rs. 10,17,250/-. As per the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated
31.01.2011, the jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment was vested to the ITO Kanker and
accordingly, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.08.2018 much after the CBDT
instruction. Further, with respect to Jurisdictional territory over the assessee the copy of
jurisdiction on PAN is enclosed in the case record, which clearly highlights that the PAN has
been under the ITO, Ward Kanker during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the
contention of the defendant is baseless.
Para 2.1.2: That the contents of this Para are incorrect and specifically denied. It is
submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has approached the said case with utmost
professionalism and diligence. The proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the
provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the rules thereunder. The Ld. CIT (A) has carefully
examined the relevant facts and circumstances, adhering to the principles of natural justice
and accordingly directed the AO having jurisdiction to examine the Opening Cash Balance of
the assessee during the demonetization period. Further, vide order u/s 250 of the IT Act,
1961 order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058182845(1) dated 23.11.2023, it was also
directed by the Ld. CIT (A) to AO to give relief to the assessee, if the cash in hand as on the
date of demonetization period was equal to or more than the total cash deposit made during
the demonetization period. In pursuance of the same, this office has sent a letter to the
assessee vide letter no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1059527953(1) dated 09.01.2024 to
furnish the cash book for the period 01.04.2016 to 30.11.2016 with supporting evidence with
respect to Opening Cash Balance of the assessee in the cash book. In response to the said
notice, the assessee remained non-responsive. Further, the concern raised by the assessee
with respect to addition of Rs. 27,30,000/- merely on presumption and surmises is
misleading and based on misconceived interpretation of law.
Para 2.1.3: That the contents of Para No. 2.1.3 are false and repetitive in nature and have
already been discussed in an elaborative form in the Assessment Order U/s 143(3) which has
been rightly sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, needs no specific reply to avoid repetitions
and for the sake of brevity.
3. Submitted for your kind consideration and necessary action as per provisions of the IT
Act, 1961.
Encl: Case Record (01 Vol) Yours faithfully,
(K K Purohit)
Income Tax Officer
Ward Jagdalpur
Copy to: The Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Raipur for kind information.
Income Tax Officer
Ward Jagdalpur
