MORESHWAR DAMDUJI BHENDE,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD-1, WARDHA

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 85 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. It is stated that assessee failed to respond to the statutory notices owing to unawareness of Faceless assessment procedure and lack of knowledge of communication through mail rather than deliberate negligence and therefore the consequent delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) cannot be regarded as deliberate or contumacious. I find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee was prevented to 2 Moreshwar Damduji Bhende

The grievance of the assessee revolves around the addition of Rs.12,19,980/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act for the unexplained cash deposit.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2019-

Ld. Assessing Officer had information about cash deposit of Rs.3,33,84,920/- in the bank account held with Wardha Nagari Sahkari Adhikosh Maryadit. Based on this information, assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act were carried out. During the course of assessment proceedings, Wardha Nagari Sahkari Adhikosh Bank has certified through letter dated 13.04.2023 that out of the cash deposit of Rs.3,33,84,920/-, cash deposit of Rs.3,21,15,270/- pertains to another assessee namely Vikas Gramin Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, ld. Assessing Officer accepted the contents of the certificate and only proceeded to examine the source of cash deposits of remaining cash of Rs.12,19,980/- but assessee failed to file documentary evidence as a result ld. Assessing

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted though fairly admitted that assessee did not respond to the notices issued by ld. Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A) he however submitted that assessee is a small time trader of cement and the alleged cash deposit is on account of sale proceeds of cement. He also referred to the bank account which is hypothecation limit account which in itself indicates that it is a business account and therefore stated that total turnover during the year is Rs.18,69,203/- and the net income may be estimated @8% on this amount.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of both the lower authorities and stated that the impugned additions deserves to be confirmed.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer making addition for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.12,19,980/- invoking section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee could not place the details before ld.CIT(A) as well as ld.Assessing Officer. Now the evidences have been filed before this Tribunal. These evidences clearly indicate that assessee is carrying on the business in the name of Bhagyashree Traders at Wardha. In 4 Moreshwar Damduji Bhende

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

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, न गपुर SMC बेंच, 4. न गपुर / DR, ITAT, “Nagpur SMC Bench, Nagpur ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,