Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
A.Y. 2009-10 Smt. Ranjana Bajpai, DCIT / ACIT, 6-C, Bank Road, Allahabad- vs. Circle-1(1), Allahabad 211002, Uttar Pradesh PAN:AAPPB9960P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR Date of hearing: 05.12.2024 Date of pronouncement: 05.12.2024 O R D E R PER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, A.M. The present appeal emanates from the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) dated 22.12.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC. It is further seen that the ld. AO passed an order dated 16.12.2016 after issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act on account of an information allegedly pertaining to income escaping assessment. However, the appellant failed to file any return in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Before the ld. AO, there was inadequate compliance to the terms of notices under section 142(1), leading to an order under section 147 r.w.s 144 (incidentally the AO’s order is under section 144 only). 1.1 The ld. AO made the following three additions as under: a. Capital gains Rs. 36,21,000/-. 1 A.Y. 2009-10 Smt. Ranjana Bajpai b. Donation receipt Rs.2,00,000/-. c. Unexplained cash deposit Rs.10,50,000/-.
Aggrieved with this action of ld. AO, the appellant approached the ld. CIT(A) challenging all the three additions. Before the ld. CIT(A), some additional evidences were submitted and a report was also called from ld. AO. After considering the facts and documents before him, the ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. AO to re-compute the capital gains to account for purchase price, as against the action of the ld. AO who is seen to have added the entire sale consideration. Regarding the alleged donation of Rs.2,00,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) was not convinced of the bona fides of the claim and hence upheld the action of the ld. AO. Lastly, regarding the cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) has recorded that on a salary income of Rs.8,78,330/- for the entire year, there could not be savings of Rs.10,50,000/- which could be deposited in the bank. He accordingly upheld the action of the ld. AO regarding this amount.
Aggrieved with the action of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant has filed the present appeal with grounds running into several pages, not being numbered and being extremely argumentative and verbose. Accordingly, we may summarize the substantive issues as per the grounds as under:- i. The ld. AO has not applied his mind before passing a best judgment assessment. ii. The addition of Rs.10,50,000/- was unjustified. iii. The donation of Rs.2,00,000/- added in the hands of the assessee was unjustified. iv. The charging of interest under section 234B and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) have also been challenged.
A.Y. 2009-10 Smt. Ranjana Bajpai 3. Before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued through, written submissions, that the appellant was belonging to a very wealthy / well- to do family, with her husband being a high net worth individual. It was averred that the assessee was not required to spend any amount from her salary for any household expenses etc,. It was also averred that the assessee is also a social worker, who has been working for the society and thus sometimes people give her money for some noble cause or another. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has to be seen in this light. The ld. AR also relied on certain case laws in his favour. 3.1 The ld. DR, on the other hand, read out portions from the impugned order and stated that since the assessee could not establish the source of the impugned funds (additions) to the satisfaction of the ld. AO hence, the impugned order deserves to be sustained in full.
We have carefully considered the written submissions filed by the appellant, the orders of the authorities below and the contentions of the ld. AR / ld. DR. Right at the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that the ld. AR’s argument that the provisions of section 68 could not be attracted on the impugned amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- is not acceptable since the ld. AO has not used any section of the Income Tax Act in making the said addition. Thus, the ld. AR’s contention that in the absence of books of accounts, the provisions of section 68 could not be invoked is not accepted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed to be received from social work, it is seen that the same has not been adequately demonstrated before the ld. CIT(A) to prove its nature and purpose. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has gone by whatever documents were submitted for ld. AO’s comments through the remand report. It is felt that in the interest of substantive justice, this matter deserves to be remanded back to the file of the ld. AO for affording another opportunity to the appellant for presenting her case. It may be kept in mind that the appellant would do well to present detailed cash flow statement to indicate that Rs.10,50,000/- was actually available with her for depositing in the bank account. We are also 3