RANGASAMY DEEPA,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO WARD-1(4), ERODE

At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 95 days. From Form 36, it is noticed that this appeal was filed by assessee on 30.11.2022 as against date of service of the impugned appellate order on 28.06.2022 thereby there is a delay of 95 days in filing of this appeal by assessee. The assessee has filed affidavit stating reason that there was a strained relationship between the assessee and her husband and due to that she could not concentrate on her business as well as litigation matter including this appellate proceedings. The reason cited by assessee in the affidavit reads as under:- “The appeal against the above order, ought to have been filed on or before 27/08//2022, is now filed with a delay of 95 days. The reasons for such delay are that there was a difference of opinion between the appellant and her husband, that it resulted in strained relationship and that the appellant had menstrual problems. Now, after solving, though temporarily, all the above issues, the appeal is now filed. As the appellant does not stand to gain by filing the appeal belatedly and since the delay is not intentional, it is submitted that the reasons be viewed liberally, delay be condoned and appeal be admitted in the interest of justice.”

When this was confronted to ld. Senior DR, he opposed condonation of delay because there is no evidence of any strained relationship between husband and wife. Except this, he could not controvert the above oath taken by assessee on affidavit. After hearing both the sides, I’m of the view that the delay being of 95 days which is a - 3 - small delay and the fact mentioned by assessee seems reasonable, hence I 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 assessment order framed by the AO in sustaining the addition of cash deposit made in the bank account during demonetization period of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs). Another aspect argued by assessee is also that the CIT(A) and AO erred in not considering written submissions and facts in prospective as well as violation of principles of natural justice.

I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and is an authorized dealer of Bharat Petroleum Company Ltd., and running fuel station in the name of M/s. Sri Angalamman Fuels during the financial year 2016-17. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee produced the following details:-  Day Book, Ledger Book and Cash Book for the period relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18.  Details of cash deposits made into the bank accounts during the year 2016-17  Details of cash deposits during demonetization period.  Sources for cash deposits made during the year (including demonetization period)

Now before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copy of Gazette Notification No.2654 – S.O. 3409(E) & 2654-S.O. 3407(E) & 2653 – S.O. 3408(E) dated 8.11.2016 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance u/s 24(1) & 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) as amended by subsequent notifications issued under the Scheme of Demonetization of the year, 2016 and the relevant notification in Gazette Notification No.2653 dated 08.11.2016 which was further substituted vide Notification No.2774 SO 3544E dated 24.11.2016, to the extent of transactions specified below namely a…… b….. c….. d….. e. for purchase of petrol, diesel and gas at the stations operating under the authorization of Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies (read as Public Sector Oil and Gas Marketing Companies –vide Notification No.2684 SO 3447(E) dated 13.11.2016)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.