MANJU DEVI BAGARIA,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-1, ROURKELA

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order has been disposed off by the ld. CIT(A) without hearing the assessee. It was the prayer that the assessee may be granted another opportunity of being heard.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee had been granted sufficient opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has not produced the evidence before the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue considering the evidence as available. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) at page 11 at the end of para 5, shows that the assessee failed to furnish evidence in support of her claim before the AO. Even the assessee could not prove her contention of sundry debtors either before the AO or before the CIT(A). The relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) read as under :- The assessee has failed to furnish evidence in support of her claim that she had received the cash from HUF business. Detailed documentary evidence in respect of the cash book of M/s Grihasthi Udyog has not been produced before AO or in appeal. Further, the entire chain of circumstances around the purported transaction has been examined by the AO. On the touchstone of preponderance of probability, the entire sequence of transactions fails the test of preponderance of probability. When, the banking facility was available at doorstep in the modern society, the necessity of receipt of cash and deposits in the bank account after four months of receipt, if the cash was available with the HUF business on 31.05.2012 then why the amount was not given through banking channel and why cash was given, if the cash was given on 31.05.2012, then why assessee could not deposit huge amount of cash in the bank account as soon as possible, taking into account the fear of theft and also earning of interest on such deposits. Nor could the assessee prove her contention of sundry debtors before either the AO or in appeal.

It is further noticed that the assessee has not produced the cash book before the AO for verification. In these circumstances, so as to grant the assessee another opportunity to rectify its failure and produce its books of accounts before the ld. AO and to explain the transactions, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.