No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.09.2023, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056304526(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.
As per the office note, there is a delay of 102 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which ld. Sr. DR did not object to it. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated by the assessee in the affidavit for delay, we condone the delay of 102 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal of the assessee finally.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, derives income from wholesale trading of eggs and filed its return of income on 09.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,87,060/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO completed the assessment stating that the assessee has inflated his sales in paper for the period of pre-demonetization period to show the unexplained money as cash in hand as on 09.11.2016 and deposited the same during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the AO made the addition of Rs.29,85,500/- treating the same as unexplained cash credit in the bank account of the assessee. Further the AO has also made addition of Rs.1,14,300/- u/s.36(1)(ii) of the Act. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee has produced the documentary evidence as were sought for by the AO, however, those documents have not been considered. Even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed statement of facts along with grounds of appeal
. But the ld. CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case and substantiate its claim before the AO.
4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order page 3 & 4 shows that the AO has asked for certain details regarding nature and source of cash deposit to which the assessee has furnished the details of cash deposit, however, the AO found that there is some inflation of sales in paper for the period of pre- demonetization period. Further on perusal of page 9 of the order of the ld.