ARUNA RASIKLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 329 days in filing the instant appeal.

The Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay, duly supported by a sworn affidavit of her daughter. It has been stated that the Assessee, being a senior citizen with limited knowledge of technology and financial matters, was dependent upon her late husband, Shri Rashiklal Shah, for managing her financial and business affairs. After his demise on 04.02.2011, she became dependent upon her son and sister for handling her day-to-day and financial affairs.

We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

Considering the reasons assigned for the delay of 329 days in filing the instant appeal, as explained by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee, Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Advocate, and the same being duly supported by the sworn affidavit of the Assessee as well as the medical records placed on record, we are satisfied that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 329 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

Coming to the merits of the case, it transpires from the record that during the course of assessment proceedings, which culminated in the assessment order dated 03.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer scrutinized the return of income filed by the Assessee on 24.03.2017 declaring a total income of ₹4,35,750/- and, by issuing a show-cause notice, called upon the Assessee to explain the cash deposits aggregating to ₹12,40,000/- made in her savings bank account maintained with Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd.

In response thereto, the Assessee submitted that out of the total cash deposits of ₹12,40,000/-, a sum of ₹4,35,000/- had already been offered to tax in the return of income for the relevant Assessment Year.

The Assessing Officer, however, not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Assessee in respect of the balance amount of ₹8,05,000/- for want of supporting documentary evidence, treated the said amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved with the addition made by the AO, preferred the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who, vide the impugned order, confirmed the addition.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred the present appeal before us.

We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It transpires from the submissions advanced and the documentary evidence, particularly the bank statements placed before us, that the Assessee had effected substantial withdrawals and corresponding deposits during the relevant financial year as well as in the preceding years and, prima facie, sufficient funds were available to explain the deposits in question. The Ld. Sr. DR, however, fairly submitted that the said documentary evidence requires proper verification by the Assessing Officer before any relief could be granted.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, for the just and proper adjudication of the issue involved and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the withdrawals and the corresponding deposits made by the Assessee. The Assessing Officer shall examine the documentary evidence to be furnished by the Assessee and, upon being satisfied that the deposits are duly explained by the withdrawals and other available sources of funds, shall delete the addition to that extent, strictly in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

The Assessee is directed to furnish before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer all the documentary evidences relied upon before us immediately upon receipt of this order and shall extend full cooperation during the remand proceedings.

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.