RASHMI HITESH ANANDANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 13 days. Assessee has filed condonation application explaining the reasons which led to delay and the relevant portion reads as follows :

Exchange of Files: The appellant submits that time has passed in process of compiling and collecting details and information as requested by the new tax consultant. Once the same has been complied and collected, appellant submitted the same to the tax consultant. Hence, a delay has crept into filing of the present appeal. However, in this entire process, precious time to file an appeal was unfortunately lost and a delay of about 13 days has crept into the matter. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is purely unintentional.”

Considering the above reasons, I find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

The assessee has raised as many as ten grounds of appeal and the grievance of the assessee revolves around the addition of Rs.8,22,850/- made by the Assessing Officer for the alleged unexplained cash deposit during the year under 3 Rashmi Hitesh Anandani

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs.3,49,700/- in the e- return for A.Y. 2017-18 furnished on 26.06.2017. Case selected for scrutiny to verify the cash deposit during the demonetization period followed by validly serving statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Assessee is employed with Seva Vikas Cooperative Bank Limited and she maintains multiple accounts with Seva Vikas Cooperative Bank Limited and during the year under consideration cash of Rs.10,22,850/- has been deposited. Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the source of cash deposit to the extent of Rs.2.00 lakh being from savings of preceding years but for the remaining amount of Rs.8,22,850/- he was not satisfied because necessary details could not be furnished. Income assessed at Rs.11,72,850/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny and the cash deposited during the demonetization period is only Rs.6,75,500/- and ld. Assessing Officer erred in considering the deposits for the remaining period by making the addition which was beyond his juri iction of the Limited Scrutiny. He also referred to a chart providing details of cash withdrawals and cash deposits and has stated that prior to the declaration of demonetization scheme the cash in hand

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.10,22,850/- during the year under consideration in the various bank accounts held with Seva Vikas Cooperative Bank Limited. Admittedly, the case of the assessee has been selected for Limited Scrutiny and ld. Assessing Officer without taking any prior approval for enhancing the scope of Limited Scrutiny was only having the juri iction to examine the issue for which Limited Scrutiny has been carried out, i.e. regarding the cash deposited during the demonetization period which in the instant case is Rs.6,75,500/-. However, ld. Assessing Officer has exceeded the juri iction and has taken into consideration the total amount of cash deposits during the year. I further observe that the assessee is a salaried employee with Seva Vikas Cooperative Bank Limited and regularly filing the income-tax returns. A chart depicting the withdrawals and deposits from April 2016 to March 2017 is available on record. Assessee has adopted the opening cash in hand at Rs.2.00 lakh which ld. Assessing Officer has also accepted in the assessment order and thereafter the withdrawals and 5 Rashmi Hitesh Anandani

As regards the legal grounds raised by the assessee, dealing with them would be merely academic in nature as the addition stands deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,