SONAL KUMARI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NCW-6(2), CHENNAI

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in ITBA No.10118/CIT(A)-5/2019-20 dated 15.09.2020. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 6(2), Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 14.11.2019.

At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal of assessee is barred by limitation by 5 days. The impugned order was received by assessee on 14.12.2020 and appeal before Tribunal was to be filed on or before 08.12.2020 but appeal was actually filed on 14.12.2020 thereby there is a delay of 5 days. We noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay during the said period, respectfully following the same 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 action of AO in adding the cash deposited during demonetization period in assessee’s savings bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank between 15.11.2016 to 05.12.2016 amounting to Rs.7.68 lakhs. The AO noted that the assessee has admitted income only to Rs.2,42,540/- during the financial year relevant to this assessment year 2017-18 and hence, giving credit for the same, the AO assessed the balance cash Rs.5,25,460/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee could not produce any evidence before him and he confirmed by observing in para 6 as under:- “6. Matter is considered. Perused the assessment order and the submissions e-filed by the appellant. Except for saying that the source of the impugned cash deposits is from past savings, the AR has not demonstrated the same with any documentary evidence before me. To that extent, the appellant has not discharged the onus of proving the sources of deposits of specified bank notes (SBNs) to the tune of Rs.5,25,460/- as determined by the AO. Hence, I decline to interfere with the addition made at Rs.5,25,460/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961. The grounds taken are dismissed.” Aggrieved assessee came in appeal before Tribunal. 4. Now before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed paper- book consisting of 25 pages wherein he has filed cash flow statement, profit & loss account for the year ending 31.03.2017 and profit & loss account for the year ending 31.03.2016 wherein cash in hand of Rs.2,12,625/- & Rs.8,25,295/- respectively is declared. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee is filing returns of income from assessment year 2011-12 to 2015-16 and source is tuition income. It was answered by ld.counsel, on query from the Bench, that these profit & loss account now filed before us was never part of the returns of income filed earlier. In our view all