DEEPALI ROHELA,RAMPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), RAMPUR

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing, hence, I am deciding the appeal exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

Brief facts of the case are that AO made the addition of Rs.10,27,500/- by noting that assessee deposited cash in bank account during demonetization period from undisclosed sources, as the sources were neither properly explained, the onus is on the assessee’s to prove that the cash deposits, hence, AO added the same to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources and the same was taxed u/s. 115BBE @ 60%. However, in appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority sustained the addition. Against the above, assessee appealed before the Tribunal.

After hearing, the Ld. DR and perusing the records, I note that it was the contention of the assessee before the AO, that these were sales made by her husband but erroneously deposited in her account. AO noted that the sales volumes were not commensurate with the sales shown earlier. However, sales were much higher in Nov/Dec, 2016 and found with dismay the argument being put-forth by the assessee that she was ignorant of law. Ld. CIT(A) noted that no documentary evidences have been attached of her husband’s business, hence, he sustained the addition. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s contentions before the lower authorities and Revenue’s contention in support of the impugned addition. I find no reason to accept either parties stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessee has been able to properly explain the source of cash deposits nor the department could simply brush aside all the relevant evidence at one go. Be that as it may, the tribunal is of the considered view that in these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to confirm the impugned addition of Rs.10,27,500/-