ASHA AGRAWAL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO 1(1), ALLAHABAD

In this case, the present appeal emanates from the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 1.07.2024. It is seen from the records that the ld. AO passed an order under section 144 on account of three deposits in bank accounts of the assessee as under:- i. 1883000/- ii. 350000/- iii. 1096000/- These three figures totaling to Rs.3329000/- were added back under section 69A of the Act. In addition to this the ld. AO also added an amount of A.Y. 2017-18 Asha Agarwal Rs.4927360/- being 10% of the deposits in the bank account other than cash, treating the same as unexplained investment.

Aggrieved with this action of the ld. AO, the appellant approached the ld. CIT(A) where essentially, on the face of it, no relief was granted to the appellant.

Since the appellant did not succeed at first appeal stage, she has approached the ITAT with as many as nine grounds of appeal which not only challenged the substantive additions but also claimed that the principles of natural justice were denied and the assessee could not make a proper presentation before the First Appellate Authority and the ld. AO. 3.1 Before us, the ld. AR has filed detailed written submissions and argued that the assessee was ill-advised in taxation matters and therefore, there was no proper representation before the ld. AO. He also stated that the assessee should not suffer for lack of knowledge about tax procedure. Importantly, the ld. AR took pains to point out that the impugned order actually pertains to A.Y. 2018-19 and not A.Y. 2017-18. In fact, he has read out extensively from various paragraphs of the ld. CIT(A’s) order and has drawn our attention to the fact that even submissions for A.Y. 2018-19 have been considered and not the ones for A.Y. 2017-18. The ld. AR concluded his arguments by saying that the assessee should not suffer on account of this oversight by the ld. CIT(A). He eventually prayed that the matter should be restored to the file of the ld. AO for a fresh consideration on the basis of facts that the assessee would certainly present in case given an opportunity. 3.2 The ld. DR pointed out that the assessee was not vigilant enough before the ld. AO but agreed that apparently the ld. CIT(A), due to an oversight, adjudicated the matter on the basis of facts and submissions for the next year (A.Y. 2018-19) and not the present year (A.Y. 2017-18). He indicated that there would be no objection in case this matter is restored to the file of the ld. AO for a fresh consideration on facts. 2