SARIKA GANDHI,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , , SAGAR

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:

4. The CIT (Appeal) was also not justified in deciding the ap The CIT (Appeal) was also not justified in deciding the ap The CIT (Appeal) was also not justified in deciding the appeal without appreciating that proceeding initiated u/s 148 was without appreciating that proceeding initiated u/s 148 was without appreciating that proceeding initiated u/s 148 was illegal and bad in law. illegal and bad in law. 5. That the CIT(Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in not That the CIT(Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in not That the CIT(Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessing officer passed the assessment appreciating that the assessing officer passed the assessment appreciating that the assessing officer passed the assessment order in undue haste and in gross violation of order in undue haste and in gross violation of principles of principles of natural justice natural justice 6. That the CIT(Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in not That the CIT(Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in not That the CIT(Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in not appreciating that the Document submitted before him only on appreciating that the Document submitted before him only on appreciating that the Document submitted before him only on the ground that it is not submitted as additional evidence the ground that it is not submitted as additional evidence the ground that it is not submitted as additional evidence 7. 6. The CIT (Appeal) was also not justified in 6. The CIT (Appeal) was also not justified in deciding the deciding the appeal without appreciating that addition AO making addition appeal without appreciating that addition AO making addition appeal without appreciating that addition AO making addition of Rs. 14,65,000/ of Rs. 14,65,000/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961was made only u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961was made only on account of cash deposit in the bank without properly on account of cash deposit in the bank without properly on account of cash deposit in the bank without properly appreciating the facts of the case. appreciating the facts of the case. 8. 7. That the Department had i 7. That the Department had imposed addition on mere cash mposed addition on mere cash deposit of Rs. 14,65,000/ deposit of Rs. 14,65,000/- during the F.Y. 2011-12 which were 12 which were against the basic principles of natural justice. and Taxation against the basic principles of natural justice. and Taxation against the basic principles of natural justice. and Taxation 2. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find t relevant material on record. We find that the assessee is a self hat the assessee is a self- employed woman and and during relevant period was engaged in the was engaged in the small trading business of garments. The assessee deposited cash of small trading business of garments. The assessee deposited cash of small trading business of garments. The assessee deposited cash of Rs.14,65,000/- in her in her bank account. It was stated bank account. It was stated that same was deposited for the purpose of buying a property. Before the Ld. deposited for the purpose of buying a property. Before the Ld. deposited for the purpose of buying a property. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed evidence to justify the deposit of the cash CIT(A), the assessee filed evidence to justify the deposit of the cash CIT(A), the assessee filed evidence to justify the deposit of the cash including bank statement, profit and loss account, balance sheet, including bank statement, profit and loss account, balance sheet, including bank statement, profit and loss account, balance sheet, purchase register etc. The Ld. CIT(A) r etc. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal the appeal for the reason for no application reason for no application under Rule 46A of the Income Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) for admitting additional evidence was 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) for admitting additional evidence was 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) for admitting additional evidence was filed. The relevant observation of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as filed. The relevant observation of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as filed. The relevant observation of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:

“4. Decision: I have carefully 4. Decision: I have carefully considered the facts on record, the considered the facts on record, the assessment order and written submissions of the appellant made by assessment order and written submissions of the appellant made by assessment order and written submissions of the appellant made by the appellant during appellate proceedings. The appeal involves sole the appellant during appellate proceedings. The appeal involves sole the appellant during appellate proceedings. The appeal involves sole issue of addition on alc of unexplained cash/money deposit of Rs. issue of addition on alc of unexplained cash/money deposit of Rs. issue of addition on alc of unexplained cash/money deposit of Rs. 14,65,000/- in san in sank account. It is a matter of fact that the Income Tax Department had received an It is a matter of fact that the Income Tax Department had received an It is a matter of fact that the Income Tax Department had received an information about cash deposit of Rs. 14,65,000/ information about cash deposit of Rs. 14,65,000/-in a saving bank in a saving bank account by the appellant and the appellant did not furnished any account by the appellant and the appellant did not furnished any account by the appellant and the appellant did not furnished any income tax return in the past. income tax return in the past. Accordingly, notice us 148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.2019. notice us 148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.2019. notice us 148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.2019. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 19.11.2019, Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 19.11.2019, Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 19.11.2019, which was refused by the appellant to receive the same. Again a which was refused by the appellant to receive the same. Again a which was refused by the appellant to receive the same. Again a final show cause notice was issued on 26.11.2019 but the appellart final show cause notice was issued on 26.11.2019 but the appellart final show cause notice was issued on 26.11.2019 but the appellart did not filed any reply. These facts clearly shows that the appellant ot filed any reply. These facts clearly shows that the appellant ot filed any reply. These facts clearly shows that the appellant was provided sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing ex was provided sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing ex was provided sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing ex- parte order and the appellant failed to rebut the facts mentioned in parte order and the appellant failed to rebut the facts mentioned in parte order and the appellant failed to rebut the facts mentioned in the assessment order during the appellate proceedings the assessment order during the appellate proceedings. Now, the appellate Now, the appellate furnished cash book, bank statement, profit & bank statement, profit & loss A/c, Balance Sheet, purchase register, etc prepared in tally c, Balance Sheet, purchase register, etc prepared in tally c, Balance Sheet, purchase register, etc prepared in tally software during the instant appellant proceedings in support of the software during the instant appellant proceedings in support of the software during the instant appellant proceedings in support of the claim that cash was deposited in the bank out of openin claim that cash was deposited in the bank out of opening cash g cash-in- hand without making any effort to justify the opening cash hand without making any effort to justify the opening cash hand without making any effort to justify the opening cash-in-hand as she had never filed any returh of. income. Further, these as she had never filed any returh of. income. Further, these as she had never filed any returh of. income. Further, these documents are fresh evidences and the appellant has not made any documents are fresh evidences and the appellant has not made any documents are fresh evidences and the appellant has not made any request for admission of these documents / evidences request for admission of these documents / evidences u/r 46A of the u/r 46A of the IT Rule. In view of the above facts & circumstances, the ground of the IT Rule. In view of the above facts & circumstances, the ground of the IT Rule. In view of the above facts & circumstances, the ground of the appellant is dismissed. appellant is dismissed.”

3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee is willing to file application under Rule 46A of the Rules, assessee is willing to file application under Rule 46A of the Rules, assessee is willing to file application under Rule 46A of the Rules, before the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of the additional evidence. In our Ld. CIT(A) for admission of the additional evidence. In our Ld. CIT(A) for admission of the additional evidence. In our opinion, the additional evidence the additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and goes to the root of the matter and therefore the admission of the same is crucial for adjudication of therefore the admission of the same is crucial for adjudication of therefore the admission of the same is crucial for adjudication of the issue in dispute. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to restore this the issue in dispute. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to re the issue in dispute. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to re issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to consider the the direction to consider the application of the assessee under Rule 46A of the Rules for application of the assessee under Rule 46A of the Rules for application of the assessee under Rule 46A of the Rules for admission of the additional evidence if so filed by the assessee. The admission of the additional evidence if so filed by the assessee. The admission of the additional evidence if so filed by the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly statistical purpose.