VIMALA SOHANLAL MEHTA,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), SOLAPUR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘PCIT’] dated 30.03.2021 for the assessment year 2011-12.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 584 days. The appellant had filed the condonation petition stating that the delay of 584 days had occurred on account Covid-19 period, there is a delay of 309 days in filing the appeal. The delay was caused in filing the present appeal on account of ill health of her daughter, who subsequently succumbed to death on 08.05.2023. In support of this, he also filed medical certificate etc. The averments made in the condonation petition remain un-controverted, therefore, it is a fit case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of footwear. No regular Return of Income was filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 on 15.03.2018 on receipt of the information that the assessee had deposited Rs.35,69,000/- with Vishweshwar Sah. Bank Ltd. during the financial year 2010-11. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,75,400/-. Subsequently, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Solapur (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.8,07,131/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer estimated 8% of Rs.99,74,550/- being cash deposited in the bank account. 4. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT, on examination of the assessment record, formed an opinion that the Assessing Officer had merely accepted the claim of the assessee that the source of cash deposits is out of the business receipts of trading in footwear without examining any documentary evidence such as licence, purchase & sale bills etc. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT proposed the revision of the assessment and issued a show-cause notice u/s 263 dated 12.02.2021 calling upon the appellant to show-cause as to why the assessment order should not be set-aside. No explanation was filed in response to the said show-cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act. In the circumstances, the ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to reframe the assessment in accordance with law. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Since the assessee had not filed any explanation before the ld. PCIT in response to show-cause notice u/s 263, no pleadings