RIYA SUNIL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2)(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The solitary ground of appeal

of the assesse is directed against the NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,45,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposit in the bank account by the assesse as unexplained money.

2. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,20,300/- was filed on 31.07.2017. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.09.2018. During the course of assessment the A.O noticed from the data collected from the bank that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.2,45,000/- in bank account maintained with Bank of India Ghatkopar East branch. During the course of assessment the assessee P a g e | 2 Riya Sunil Jain Vs. The ITO, Ward 6(2)(1) explained that she has received cash from conducting tuition classes. The assessee has submitted the supporting details as asked vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act relating to detail of tuition classes vouchers/receipts and copy of cash book maintained by the assessee etc. However, the AO noticed that out of the cash deposited the assessee has transferred amount of Rs. 2 lac to M/s Rajual Jewellers on 21.02.2017 and also noticed further transactions with the said jewellers. Therefore, the A.O has come to the conclusion that cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee has no connection with tuition income received by her. Therefore, the AO treated the cash deposited during the demonetization period appearing in the bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

3. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on the merit and dismiss the same on the ground that assessee has not attended the hearing in spite of issuing 4 notices on different dates.

4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of appellate proceedings before me the ld. Counsel contended that assesse has earned tuition fees by providing tuition to various students and received cash in consideration of the same. It is also submitted that supporting, account books, relevant vouchers and the documentary evidences were not considered during the course of assessment proceedings by the A.O. In this regard I observe that ld. CIT(A) ought to have consider the material on record for adjudicating the issue contested in the appeal on merit. Section 250(6) contemplates that the first appellate authority would determine point in dispute and therefore, record reason on such point in support of his conclusion. Therefore, I restore this case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on merit after affording opportunity