ITAT Gives Fresh Chance to Liquor Retailer in Rs 10,000 PMNRF Unexplained Deposit Case After She Produces New Evidence:

ITAT granted a fresh opportunity to a liquor retailer to substantiate cash deposits and payments to Karnataka State Beverages Corporation, subject to a Rs. 10,000 PMNRF deposit.
ITAT Remands Rs. 10,000 PMNRF-Conditioned Appeal

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted one more opportunity to a Bengaluru-based liquor retailer whose cash deposits and payments to the Karnataka State Beverages Corporation were treated as unexplained money and expenditure for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The Tribunal set aside the earlier orders and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to reconsider the matter after examining the supporting documents.
Ms Susheela (assessee) had not filed any income tax return (ITR) for the year under consideration. The AO reopened the assessment based on the information that during the relevant year, the assessee had made certain cash deposits (the source of them was not explained and also based on the TCS statement). Subsequently, issued notices under Section 142(1). In the absence of any response to the issued notices, the AO treated the cash desposits in question as unexplained under Section 69A, while payments made to the Karnataka State Beverages Corporation were treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, completed the assessment ex parte.
The assessee challenged the assessment before the CIT(A). However, despite six communications, she did not provide the required documents and only sought adjournments on two occasions. The CIT(A) consequently dismissed the appeal due to the absence of supporting evidence.
Before the ITAT, the assessee explained that she operates a retail liquor shop and that the cash deposits represented collections from liquor sales. She submitted that these amounts were subsequently used to make payments to the Karnataka State Beverages Corporation. She also pointed out that she had filed GST returns and submitted additional documents supporting her business activities. The assessee attributed her earlier non-compliance to a change of auditors.
The tribunal held that "the assessee had not produced any documents before the lower authorities, and for the first time, the additional documents were produced before us, therefore the authorities below had no occasion to consider the said documents. In such circumstances and also considering the facts of the case, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the AO along with the supporting documents."
Consequently, the tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order and instructed the lower authorities/AO to reconsider the case afresh after considering the additional evidence and any other relevant documents. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, subject to the assessee depositing Rs 10,000 with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within four weeks of receiving the order.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
3019My Recent Articles
- Max Healthcare Receives NCLT Order in Kalinga Hospital Dispute, Next Hearing Fixed for December 14
- E-Way Bill Numbers to Increase from 12 to 14 Digits, Consolidated E-Way Bills from 10 to 11 Digits
- CBI Arrests PNB Staffer, Private Person in Rs 10.24 Crore Greater Noida Bank Fraud Case
- Clean Max Subsidiary Wins Income Tax Appeal After NFAC Deleted 654.45 Million Tax Demand
- Supriya Sule Urges Finance Minister to Extend November TDS/TCS and GST Compliance Deadlines Amid Diwali
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts










