MRS . DONNA MOORE ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD - 17(6), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A),Chennai- 10161/2019-20 dated 23.06.2022. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 17(6), Chennai for the 2 assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 30.11.2019.

At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 1 day. It is noticed from Form 36 that the order of CIT(A) was received on 23.06.2022 but appeal was actually filed on 23.08.2022 with a delay of 1 day. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reason that the assessee was residing in United Kingdom and the assessee’s counsel has prepared and sent the appeal papers for her signature and in turn, she couriered to her counsel after signing. The delay of one day has occurred during transmission of appeal papers. As the delay is small just of 1 day and the cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by Revenue, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.38,66,488/- being demonetized cash deposit by assessee in specified bank notes out of the total addition made by AO of Rs.84,39,439/-. 3 4. Brief facts are that the assessee did not file her return of income for the relevant assessment year 2017-18. The assessee’s case was selected for NMS to verify the deposits made during the demonetization period i.e., SBNs. The Department was having information that the assessee has deposited demonetized currency in one savings bank account, one joint account and two joint term loan account along with her husband Shri Lionel Jude Moore maintained with Federal Bank and one HDFC savings bank account amounting to Rs.84,39,439/-. The AO completed the assessment as the assessee never represented before AO or filed any evidence except making a statement that she is housewife and her husband works in Nigeria and he is getting salary in US Dollar of 10000 after deduction of tax per month. She explained in her letter dated 25.09.2019 that her husband has purchased jewellery out of savings and now they have sold the jewellery and deposited the cash i.e., demonetized currency in the savings bank accounts. The AO made addition of cash deposit in Federal Bank and HDFC Bank i.e., demonetized cash of Rs.18,76,824/- by treating the same as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and taxed the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Similarly, the AO also added the other credits available with bank account during financial year 2016-17 relevant to this assessment year 2017-18 and treated 4 the unexplained credit u/s.69A of the Act, amounting to Rs.65,62,615/-. Thereby, the AO made double addition of Rs.84,39,439/- and treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act and directed to be taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act.

Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee restricted the addition at Rs.38,66,488/-. The details of bank account, addition made by AO u/s.69A of the Act, relief granted by CIT(A) and addition sustained by CIT(A) are provided by assessee in her chart which reads as under:-

Now before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee first of all tried to explain the first addition of Rs.6,68,425/- i.e., amount received from Lalitha Thanga Maaligai towards sale of old jewellery. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 36, copy of invoice placed in the paper-book. According to ld.counsel, this is a new evidence and it could not be filed before the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings nor before the CIT(A). The ld.counsel then drew our attention to second addition of Rs.16,28,062/- i.e., the transactions carried out by her husband Shri Lionel Jude Moore in the joint account and copy of confirmation is enclosed in assessee’s paper-book at pages 33 to 35. It was contended that this information was before CIT(A) but CIT(A) has not property appreciated the transaction as the transaction belongs to assessee’s husband and that too, it is unexplained, be added in the hands of her husband only. As regards to third addition 6 sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.10,00,000/-, she explained that this is the loan received from Ms.Sheeba, received and repaid through banking channel within a short span of time and confirmation is filed in assessee’s paper-book at page 37 and the details of receipts are enclosed in assessee’s paper-book at pages 12,13 & 29. According to ld.counsel, this information was also available before CIT(A) but CIT(A) has not considered this explanation. The fourth addition sustained by CIT(A) and pointed out by ld.counsel was Rs.90,000/- i.e., gift received by assessee from her mother Mrs. Carmel Fassioms and confirmation placed on page 38 of assessee’s paper- book. As regards to last addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.4,80,000/- i.e., cash deposit made in savings bank account by assessee was out of sale of gold jewellery acquired by assessee’s husband out of savings of his salary received from Nigeria and the details are enclosed in assessee’s paper-book at page 28. The ld.counsel admitted that this evidence was also not filed before lower authorities and it is being filed before Tribunal. It is requested that these two new evidences i.e., as regard to first addition, the amount received from Lalitha Thanga Maaligai towards sale of old jewellery, the invoice can be verified after admission. Similarly, sale of god jewellery can also be verified. 7 7. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he stated that the CIT(A) has already considered these evidences and no further consideration is required. However, he also stated that these evidences are to be verified but at this stage it is not possible.

After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, we noted that the assessee has evidences about these additions but these needs verification at the level of AO. The assessee has to file these evidences before AO and the AO will examine the same and decide the issue according to law, whether this addition is to be sustained or deleted. In term of the above, we restore this issue back to the AO to examine the details and then decide the issue.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.