Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM
O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 03.11.2022 for AY. 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised a single issue challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs.15,81,301/- made by the AO as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).
None appeared for the assessee. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order since the assessee failed to comply with the three (3) notices issued by him. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the case on merits and has passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee and not on merits.
2 A.Y. 2017-18 Pravina Rajendra Shah 3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO noted that the assessee Mrs. Pravina Rajendra Shah has not filed her return of income and since the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetisation period after 8th Nov, 2016 to the tune of Rs.10,51,500/- in three (3) different bank accounts as referred to in the assessment order dated 08.12.2019 passed (u/s 144 of the Act) and balance amount credited in the bank account i.e. of Rs.5,30,301/-. According to the AO, since these credits have taken place during the demonetisation period, he show caused the assessee as to why the same should not be added u/s 69A of the Act (unexplained money). According to the AO, the assessee’s husband Mr. Rajendra Shah attended the office and furnished a paper book containing bank details and statement and a rough computation of income of the assessee. According to the AO, it was submitted before him that she is a house-wife and has an interest in cooking and by doing such an activity/cooking, she had made some income; and some income was generated by her handicapped unmarried daughter Ms. Dipti Shah (36 years) who is a trained beautician; and some money was found from the possession of her late mother who expired in the year 2015; so she had money from three (3) sources which she deposited in the bank during the demonetisation period. Even though, the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the AO, the AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash deposit and other credits reflected in the bank account of the assessee. According to the AO, no supporting evidences were furnished by the assessee during the assessments proceeding because of which he made