AMITA KAMLESH RUPAREL,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD-2, SANGLI, SANGLI

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the 2 addition of Rs.88,09,640/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,32,260/-. Subsequently the assessee revised her return of income on 13.08.2017 and declared income at Rs.3,13,540/-. The income was offered for taxation as per the provisions of section 44AD of the Act on gross turnover of Rs.11,61,900/-. On the basis of information received from the ACIT, Central Circle 4(4), Central Range-4, Mumbai that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.84,88,640/- in her account held with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd and such cash deposit did not commensurate with the return filed, the Assessing Officer after recording reasons, reopened the assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed her return of income on 06.08.2021 declaring total income of Rs.10,09,657/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of Rs.84,88,640/- deposited in the account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.84,88,640/- u/s 69A of the Act.

Since despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee did not respond to the said notices, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the ex- parte order passed by him sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC were sent to the earlier e-mail ID instead of the e-mail ID mentioned in Form No.

He filed the screenshot of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC as well as the e-mail ID given in Form No.

He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.84,88,640/- u/s 69A of the Act on the ground that the assessee could not explain satisfactorily the source of such cash deposits made in the account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. We find due to non-submission of any details despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the notices were sent to the wrong e-mail ID the assessee was not aware

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

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////