Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 11.08.2023, 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.11,80,000/- under section 69A of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Assessee is an individual. Assessee is a partner in partnership firm M/s. Sanjay Trading Company engaged in the business of bill and cheque discounting commission agents (general commission agents). For the Assessment Year 2017-18, return of income was filed on 31.05.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,06,670/-.
The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2019. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had made cash deposit of a sum of Rs.11,80,000/- during the demonetization period in Sree Charan Co-operative Bank. Since assessee did not furnish any explanation with regard to source of cash deposit, the AO made an addition of cash deposits under section 69A of the Act.
Aggrieved by the Order of Assessment in making addition of Rs.11,80,000/- under section 69A of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte since there was no response to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A).
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is a lady and her business of the partnership was essentially run by her husband. It was submitted that the notice sent to her email address was omitted to be noticed. Consequently, there was no appearance before the CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee from Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18 has been regularly filing the return of income and she was in receipt of share income from the partnership firm, interest on capital and partner’s remuneration which was sufficient to explain the source of cash deposits. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to furnish the relevant details.
The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From paragraph 4 of the impugned order of the CIT(A), it is clearly discernible that sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee for filing details / submissions.
It is claimed that notice served electronically on the registered email has not been taken note by the assessee. I strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued. However, in the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee. Since the assessee had not furnished the requisite details even before the AO, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO. Assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall furnish the necessary details as required. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.