SUSHMA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 37(4), NEW DELHI

Brief facts of the case are that in this case, Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax nobody appeared. He noted as per the facts of the case that assessee has entered into cash deposits of Rs.21,95,000/- in Financial Year 2010-11. That assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited but assessee did not respond. AO proceeded to add the said amount u/s 69 of the Act.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that the assessee along with ld. AR attended and argued the case and filed the written submissions. He noted that AO has given sufficient opportunity and assessee has not availed the opportunities to explain the matter before the AO. He noted that before him, assessee along with ld. AR appeared and submitted that no notice was received by her. Assessee filed copy of balance sheet, cash flow chart month-wise and date-wise, monthly sale purchase summary, bank statements and copy of loan accounts. Ld. CIT(A) noted that while purpose of loan account was not established and other documents were self made and not open to confirmation from a third party. He noted that all the submitted documents do not establish the basic claim that the assessee was engaged in the cloth business in the name of M/s. Gunjan Impex and the nature thereof. He noted that the assessee moved an application u/s 46A of the Act. The ld. CIT (A) declined to accept the additional evidences and dismissed the same and upheld the order of the AO.

Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. ./2019 6. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though there was non- appearance by the assessee before the AO and the reason attributed before the ld. CIT (A) was lack of receipt of notice. However, before ld. CIT (A), assessee has submitted all the necessary documents i.e. balance sheet, cash flow chart, bank statements etc. Strangely ld. CIT (A) held that these are self made and not open to confirmation from a third party. I find it absolutely absurd to accept that third party confirmation is required for the balance sheet and cash flow chart. Admittedly, ld. CIT (A) failed to apply mind to the case. Also the rejection of additional evidences filed by the assessee is totally uncalled for. In my considered view, in the interest of justice, the issue is remitted to the AO. AO is directed to consider the issue afresh in the light of the submissions and details submitted before the ld. CIT (A). Needless to add, adequate opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of November, 2022.