SMT PRITI JAYESH VASSA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(2)(5), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY () & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA () Assessment Year: 2017-18
PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The In the abov Vassa, raised the follow “1. That on facts addition made by Ld 1961 without apprec 2. That on facts addition made by Ld account of assessee 1961 without apprec 3. That's on facts a reasonable and su Ld. AO of making ad 4. The appellant c above grounds of ap time of personal hear 3. From this assess deposited an amount has not explained the 68 and Sec 69A whic respectively and made The appellant vide lett “my husband fought was working and he and kept my house me to sign cheques. H that too. I am not a transactions with the the loan. They had t and the Recovery Off a high blood pressur lakhs. I am no aware ve captioned appeal, the appella wing Grounds of Appeal : and circumstances in law the Ld. CI d. AO amounting to Rs. Rs.22,17,648/- u ciating the facts and merits of the case. and circumstances in law the Ld. CI d. AO amounting to Rs. 67,91,921/- of ca during the concerned assessment year u ciating the facts and merits of the case and in the circumstances of law the Ld. ufficient opportunity of being heard befo ddition of Rs.90,09,569/-. craves to add, amend, alter, substitute, a ppeal, if necessary, on the basis of subm ring.” sment order, it is observed tha of Rs. 90,09,569/- in her ban source of the cash. Hence, the L ch deals with cash credit and e the additions while completi ter dated 09/10/2019 has stated t with me forcing me to become the propr e could get loan only in my name. He to mortgaged. I was against it but he didn He took loan as he wanted to start a new aware of his business. He was driving e bank. In the year 2016, the bank peopl told him if he did not pay the amount, the fficer would come to my house to take pos re patient. He somehow managed cash a e from where he has got money to repay l Priti Jayesh Vassa 2 ant Ms. Priti Jayesh IT(A) erred in confirming u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, IT(A) erred in confirming ash deposited in the bank u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, CIT(A) erred in not giving re confirming the order of and modify any or all the missions to be made at the at the appellant had nk account and she Ld. AO invoked Sec. unexplained money ng the assessment. d as follows : rietor of his company as I ook loan in 2010 in name n't agree. He used to force w business but he failed in ola later. He used to do le were after him to repay ey would freeze my house ssession of house. He was and repaid loan of app. 70 loan.”
1 As mentioned ab cash deposited in her AO, while completing t 4. The appellant file passed an order on opportunities were giv served on her throug appellant on the Grou view of the same, the saying that she is not 5. Aggrieved by the appellant before ITAT 2 of this order. 6. During the heari represented her case by her husband and h doesn’t know anythin husband in her name AO and Ld. CIT(A) a confirmed because the deposits even though s 7. Heard both sid Premkumar Arjunada bove, the appellant couldn’t ex bank account and the same wa the assessment u/s. 144. ed an appeal with the Ld. CIT(A 30/08/2024. The Ld. CIT(A) ven to the appellant on various d gh e-mail. But, there was no nds of Appeal taken by her befo Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal interested in prosecuting the ap order of the Ld. CIT(A), further with the Grounds of Appeal me ing proceedings before ITAT, Th and submitted that the busine he passed away in 2018. She h ng about the business which . Per contra, the Ld. DR suppor and argued that the order of e appellant has not furnished t several opportunities were given des. The Hon’ble Bombay H.C s Luthra (HUF)69 taxman.com Priti Jayesh Vassa 3 xplain the source of as added by the Ld. A) and the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated that 6 dates which were all response from the ore the Ld.CIT(A) . In l of the appellant by ppeal. r appeal was filed by entioned in page no. he appellant herself ess was looked after as pleaded that she h was run by her rted the order of Ld. Ld. AO should be the sources of bank n to her. C. in the case of 407(Bom) has held that the Ld. CIT(A) do prosecution of the sam order should be adju husband passed away deposited cash in her to the appellant in the deposits in bank acco operate with the Depa The matter is remitted he is directed to give 2 as the matter was not 8. In view of the abo purposes. Order pronounc (NARENDER KUMAR C JUDICIAL MEM Mumbai; Dated: 07/01/2025 Poonam Mirashi, Stenographer
Copy of the Order forwarde
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai oesn’t have power to dismiss t me and all the issues mentioned udicated on merits. As it was y, who was looking after the bu account, it is decided to give on e interest of justice, to explain ount in her name. The appellan artment and furnish the source d to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fres
2 more opportunities and compl decided on merits.
ove, the appeal of appellant is al ed in the open Court on 07/0 CHOUDHRY)
(OMKARESHWA
MBER
ACCOUNTANT ed to :
Priti Jayesh Vassa
4
the appeal for non- d in the assessment submitted that her siness and who has ne more opportunity the sources of cash nt is directed to co- es of cash deposits.
sh adjudication and lete the assessment, llowed for statistical
1/2025. /-
AR CHIDARA)
T MEMBER
Guard file.
////
BY O
(Assistant
ITAT,
Priti Jayesh Vassa
5
ORDER, t