HEENA ROSHAN KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2017-18
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.08.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless
Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. Mrs. Heena Rohan Kohari
2
2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 12 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that her husband suffered from critical decease, which resulted into the delay in filing the instant appeal. The delay was beyond the control of the Assessee and therefore the same may be condoned. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R.
refuted the claim of the Assessee on the reason that the Assessee has not filed any document substantiating the claim for condonation of delay.
Having considered the delay as miniscule which is 12 days and the reason submitted by the Assessee as bonafide and unintentional, the delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case it is observed that though various notices were issued by the Ld. Commissioner to the Assessee, however, the Assessee neither filed any submission nor made any adjournment request and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner was constrained to decide the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and by impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by affirming the addition of Rs.12,88,500/- made by the Assessing Officer { AO} as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act on account of deposited amount by the Assessee in her bank accounts during demonetization period.
The Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessee is an illiterate lady and doing the business of goat farming and out of her business she kept some amount in the denomination of old SBN to do Mrs. Heena Rohan Kohari
3
“Haj Yatra”. Somehow during the demonetization period, after the ban of the old SBN by the Government of India the Assessee deposited the old
SBN in her bank account which resulted into making the addition under consideration. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee can demonstrate her case in proper manner, if the opportunity would be given by remanding the case to the file of the Ld.
Commissioner.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. objected to the same.
Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record, admittedly the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of documents, as it appears from para 5 of the impugned order, constrained to decide the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and without going into the merits of the case, because of the negligence of the Assessee as the Assessee failed to file the relevant documents/reply. And therefore the issue remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective by the Ld. Commissioner and thus for the just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee, by remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly. Mrs. Heena Rohan Kohari
4
7. The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant reply/submissions along with relevant documents which would be essentially required by the Ld. Commissioner and/or for the proper and just decision of the case. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.