SANHITA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पीठ “A-SMC” , कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “A-SMC”KOLKATA Before: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’ble Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Sanhita Ghosh I.T.O., Ward 29(3) 2 Gariahat Road (S), 4th 2B, Chandra Mandal V/s. Lane, Kolkata-700 26. Fl.,Kolkata-700 068. PAN: BPMPG7905Q अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ� /Respondent .. अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Surendra Joshi, AR,Ld.AR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl.CIT/Ld.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 12-12-2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/ 15-12-2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R

The instant appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2016- 17 is directed against the order dt. 04-08-2022 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’] by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [ in short, hereafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. That Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in holding the assessment made on original return filed on 26.97.2016 as valid although assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2018.

3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the order of the ld. AO is ex parte framed u/s. 144 of the I.T Act, 1961. Even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not appear for reasonable cause. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the facts mentioned by the ld. AO are not correct since one of the bank accounts referred in the assessment order was opened after FY 2015-16 and cash deposit amounts alleged to be unexplained by the assessee are also incorrect. Therefore, he prayed that the issue(s) on merits may be restored to the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and providing opportunity to furnish the evidence(s) in support of the grounds raised

in the instant appeal.

4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities.

5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I notice that the assessee is an individual. After the case being selected for scrutiny the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts. The ld. AO has mentioned about the undisclosed bank accounts. Out of which one being held with ICICI Bank and the other with SBI. The ld. AO asked the assessee to explain the cash deposits of Rs.39,30,000/- in these bank accounts. The assessee could not appear before the ld.AO and 2. AY 2016-17 Sanhita Ghosh