ALKA NAGESH THKUR,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in passing the impugned order ex parte, without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant thereby violating the principle of natural justice and is therefore liable to be set aside.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that the order was passed without giving assesse a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural Justice.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that reopening the assessment proceedings without independent application of his own mind.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that in reopening the assessment u/s 148 without obtaining any valid statutory approval as provided u/s 151 of the Act.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 11,10,000 on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits invoking section 69A read with section 115 BBE of the Act, which has been mechanically confirmed by the learned CIT(A) without proper appreciation of facts on record.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without appreciating that the cash deposit was duly explained as sourced from withdrawal made by the assessee's husband.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without appreciating that the balance cash deposits were made out of earlier withdrawals, which constitute a valid and accepted source.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition based on material collected without affording the assesse an opportunity to rebut the same, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.

Registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 244 days. On due consideration of the facts on record and having heard both the sides I find that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore in the light of judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), I hereby condone the delay of 244 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and is a salaried employee. Best judgement assessment for A.Y. 2020-21 concluded u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act after making addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 11,10,000/- to the return income of Rs. 3,81,320/- and thereby assessing income at Rs. 14,91,320/- I observe that the assessee neither participated in the assessment proceedings nor made any compliance before the first appellate authority and without referring to any evidence has claimed that the source of alleged cash deposit is from earlier cash withdrawals, gifts from relatives and income received on contractual basis. Therefore considering the facts of the case, I hereby restore all the issues back to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo adjudication to be carried out after providing

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.