SHAKEELUNNISSA BEGUM,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072993325(1) dated 06.02.2025. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.15,60,00/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. From the documents available, it was noticed that assessee had deposited cash during demonetization period. Page 2 of 4 During the course of hearing, various opportunities were granted to the assessee but the same was not availed by the assessee. Accordingly, for want of proper representation from the assessee’s side, the cash deposited amount to Rs.88,74,200/- into the bank account during the Financial Year 2016-17 was added as cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, it was noticed that there are sundry creditors of Rs.77,87,564/-. Assessee has not submitted any details of such sundry creditors. Accordingly, for want of proper documentation / explanations, it was also added under section 68 of the Act. Furhter, from No.26AS, it was noticed that there is TCS credits and the income was not offered amounting to Rs.8,45,460/- received from S.J. & S.P. Family Trust. It was also added into income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, learned CIT(A) issued various notices on different dates for substantiating here case but there was no response. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee has filed documents before both the authorities but they have ignored their submissions which is evident from the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 130, filed by the assessee. He further submitted that the documents were filed before the learned CIT(A) on 29.05.2023. The acknowledgment is placed at Paper Book page No.5 on 16.06.2023 which is placed at Paper Book Page No.67. The learned CIT(A) also called for remand report from the AO. During the assessment proceedings, the entire documents were submitted, the proof of which is placed at Paper Book Page No.71 dated 17.01.2025. Assessee also made compliance on 23.01.2025 which has also not been considered. Accordingly, he requested that the matter may be sent back to the AO for fresh consideration. Page 3 of 4 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities. 6. Considering the rival submissions, we noted from the Paper Book filed by the assessee that the assessee has responded to the notices even during the assessment proceedings too. However, both the authorities below have not considered the submissions filed by the assessee. In view of this, considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting the issue back to the file of AO for fresh consideration. AO is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law and assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter for early disposal of the case. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (KESHAV DUBEY) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated : 28.04.2025. /NS/* Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT4.CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order