Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 19.09.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.9,71,000/- under section 69A of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 25.01.2018 declaring income of Rs.3,22,750/- under the head ‘salary’ and ‘income from other sources’. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of verifying the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs in old notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- during the demonetization period. The AO directed the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee submitted that cash deposits are out of earlier cash withdrawals aggregating to Rs.20,28,000/- (withdrawals on 03.01.2015, 26.11.2015 and 01.12.2015). The AO held that cash withdrawals were almost more than one year prior to the date of cash deposits and the same cannot be the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The AO, however, granted the benefit of cash withdrawal made on 08.11.2016 amounting to Rs.5,29,000/- and balance of Rs.9,71,000/- was added to the total income under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order since notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) was not responded to by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted before the CIT(A) that assessee had given the email Id of her representative and the representative did not take note of the notices issued by the office of the CIT(A) nor was the assessee intimated of the same. The learned AR submitted that in the interest of justice, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present her case.
The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee had provided the email Id of her representative before the CIT(A). It was submitted that since the representative before the CIT(A) did not respond to the hearing notices sent from the Office of the CIT(A), the impugned order has been passed ex-parte. On perusal of Form 35 [Form for filing before the CIT(A)], we find that the email address is not that of the assessee but that of the representative of the assessee. In Form 36 (Form of appeal before the Tribunal), email address of the assessee has been given. We are of the view that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee. The learned AR before the Tribunal had submitted that he shall make sure that assessee shall represent her case once the matter is restored to AO or CIT(A). Taking note of the undertaking given by the learned AR, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). Assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.