INDIRA VASHDEV GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 29(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the "the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. Thus, the order dated 28.07.2023 may be set aside and the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act which was made by the learned assessing officer on the basis of the deposits appearing in the bank account with Bank of India. It is well settled principle of law that section 68 addition cannot be made on the basis of entries appearing in the bank statement in the absence of books of accounts maintained by the Assessee. Thus, the said addition of Rs. 1,11,15,000/- being contrary to the decision of the juri ictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.)" may be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 51,15,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind, or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.”

Brief facts are that the assessee did not file return of income for AY 2012- 13. Based on the information received by the department regarding purchase of immovable property and deposits in savings bank account, the case was reopened and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2018. In response to this notice, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 2,42,040/- on 09.05.2018. In response to various notices issued by the Ld. AO, the assessee furnished written reply giving explanation regarding the source of deposits in P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3417/Mum/2025 Ay 2012-13 Indira Vashdev Gandhi the bank account. However, no documentary evidence in support of various claims was filed. Accordingly, Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act and made an addition Rs.1,11,15,000/- to the returned income and finalised the assessment at an income of Rs. 1,13,57,040/-. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In responses to the notice dated 26.01.2021, the assessee requested for an adjournment. Subsequently another notice was issued on 28.04.2023 to which no compliance was made by the assessee. We have perused the grounds of appeal and after material placed before us. We observed that the assessee is a senior citizen nearly 80 years of age. Considering that sufficient opportunity was not been granted by the Ld. CIT(A), in view of the fact and considering the circumstances and the fact that assessee is a senior citizen, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A).

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

अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.