MRS NEHA VITTHAL DIMBLE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE

ORDER \nPER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :\nThe appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated\n20.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi\n[“CIT(A)"] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16.\n2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n“On facts and circumstances and in law,\n1. The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.66,65,000/- in respect\nof cash deposits in bank account of assessee as unexplained money under\nsection 69A r. w. s.115BBE and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in\nconfirming the same.\n2. The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.14,08,073/- in respect\nof purchase of motor vehicle as unexplained expenditure under section 69C\nr. w. s.115BBE and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the\nsame.\n3. The learned AO has erred in making additions and disallowances in\nassessee's case since the financial transactions which are subject matter\nof addition, belonged to assessee's husband Mr. Vitthal Dimble. In his\ncase, the AO has already made the similar additions. So, the prayer is to\ndelete the same in assessee's case.\n4. The learned CIT Appeals has erred in dismissing assessee's appeal\nwithout affording adequate opportunity of being heard and without\nhearing it on merits.\n5. The Assessee prays before your honour to afford and allow her an\nopportunity of being heard on merits of the case before lower authorities.\n6. The learned CIT A did not set aside the matter of additions and\ndisallowances in the order to the AO despite the assessment order was ex\nparte.\n7. Assessee's case was reopened by not following the due procedure of law\nand thus the assessment is bad is law since the notice u/s 148 was\nissued by the JAO and not by the FAO and the case being falling under the\nfaceless regime.\n8. The assessee prays to allow any other relief under income tax law.\n9. The appellant craves leave to add, revise, amend or alter any of the\ngrounds of appeal.\n3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual. She did\nnot file her return of income for AY 2015-16. Based on the information\navailable from the INSIGHT Portal it was found that the following income\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant AY 2015-16:\nSl. No.\nDescription of information\nSource\nAmount received\n1\nDeposited cash in saving\nbank account\nHDC Bank Pvt. Ltd.\nRs.66,65,000/-\n2\nSale/Purchase\nvehicles\nof motor\nKothari Cars Pvt. Ltd.\nRs.14,08,073/-\n3\nCredit Card bill payment\nHDFC Bank Pvt. Ltd.\nRs.2,58,547/-\n4\nTotal amount involved\nRs.83,31,620/-\n3.1 Accordingly, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued a show cause notice\nu/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 21.03.2022 after\nobtaining prior approval of the specified authority u/s 151 of the Act which\nwas duly served upon the assessee. The assessee failed to respond to the show-\ncause issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. The Ld. AO therefore proceeded to decide\nthe case on the basis of material available on record and issued notice u/s 148\nof the Act on 05.04.2022 by passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. In\nresponse to the said notice under section 148, the assessee filed her return of\nincome for AY 205-16. Further, the assessee filed only partial response to\nvarious notices issued by the Ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings\nwhich constrained the Ld. AO to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B\nof the Act on 19.02.2024 at an assessed income of Rs.83,31,620/- by making\naddition of - (i) Rs.66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank treating the\nsame as unexplained money under section 69A; (ii) Rs.14,08,073/- in respect\nof purchase of motor vehicle treating the same as unexplained expenditure u/s\n69C and (iii) Rs.2,58,547/- in respect of credit card bill payment by the\nassessee treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in his appellate order observed that inspite of many\nopportunities granted, the assessee has not responded before him either by\nfiling the reply nor seeked any adjournment. He was therefore of the opinion\nthat the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal by filing the submissions\nand substantiate the grounds raised in the appeal. Thus, based on the material\navailable on record, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed the impugned order allowing\npartial relief to the assessee by observing as under :\n

5. Findings and Decision:\nGround No.1: The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other. On\nfacts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer\n(AO) has erred in assessing income of Assessee at an amount of Rs.85,31,770/-.\nGround No.2 The learned AO has erred in making aggregate additions of Rs.\n83,31,620/- to the total income of the Assessee.\nI have carefully examined the grounds raised by the appellant. It is the\nsubmission of the appellant (in the grounds of appeal) that the AO has erred in\nmaking aggregate additions to the total income of the assessee. However, neither\nin the Form No.35 nor in the absence of any submissions being uploaded, the\nappellant has established as to how the assessment order passed not proper.\nMerely raising a ground that the AO has erred in making aggregate\nadditions to the total income of the assessee, without substantiating the claims\nmade, does not make the order, as such, unless and otherwise it is proved with\nsufficient material evidence and the reasons thereof. From the submissions, it is\nseen that the appellant has miserably failed to substantiate the same with\nmaterial evidence. Therefore, the grounds raised are dismissed.\nGround No.3: Without considering facts and circumstances of the case, the\nlearned AO has erred in making addition of Rs 66,65,000/- in respect of cash\ndeposits in saving bank account of the Assessee as unexplained money under\nsection 69A r.w.s 115BBE.\nThe ground raised by the appellant has been carefully examined. From the\nassessment order, it is observed that the appellant has indeed responded, but\nonly to seek further time/adjournment. It is seen that the appellant has miserably\nfailed to substantiate her claim with documentary proof, if any. The AO has\nclearly brought out the opportunities afforded to the appellant with date(s) of\nissue of notice(s). responses, if any received etc. In this regard, relevant paras of\nthe assessment order are reproduced below, for clarity (Page 9-10 of the\nassessment order):\n4.

6. 7. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee it can be seen\nthat assessee requested further adjournment in the issue and hasn't furnished\nany documentary evidences/details requested vide 142(1) notice dated\n19/10/2023 Considering the principals of natural justice, the assessee was\ngiven adjournment it fill 12/01/2024 and the same has been intimated to the\nassessee by issuing a letter on 29/12/2023. But no response was received from\nthe assessee in the matter. Hence, a show cause was issued to provide the\nassessee an opportunity to show cause why proposed variation should not be\nmade. However, no reply has been given by the assessee to the notice issued.\nTherefore, in the absence of any documentary evidences which the assessee has\nfailed to submit in support her claim, the assessment proceedings are proposed to\nbe completed as follows:\n4.

6. 8. CASH DEPOSITS: In the FY 2014-15, the assessee had made cash\ndeposits to the tune of Rs.66,65,000/- in her savings bank accounts (A/c No:\n50100021247176 & 50100021247611) maintained in HDFC Bank Pvt. Ltd. Vide\nher reply dated 06/07/2023 the assessee has claimed that, during the FY 2014-\n15, the HDFC Account A/c No. 50100021247176 was jointly held with her\nhusband Shri. Vitthal Sakharam Dimble and the total cash deposits in both\naccounts were already considered as her husband's income while doing his\nassessment for the AY 2015-16. The assessee also submitted the assessment\norder and demand notice in the case of her husband for the AY2015-16.\nHowever, on perusal of the assessment order in the case of Shri Vitthal\nSakharam Dimble for the AY 2015-16, it was noticed that he had never\nresponded to any of the notices issued by the department and the assessment\nwas completed ex-parte whereby raising a demand of Rs.74,14,090/-Also, the\nassessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence to prove that her\nhusband Shri Vitthal Sakharam Dimble has accepted the assessment order\npassed and paid the tax. Accordingly, vide question number 6 of 142(1) notice\ndated 19/10/2023, the assessee was requested to furnish documentary\nevidence in support of her claim. However, the assessee again failed to submit\nthe necessary documents as called vide 142(1) notice, instead requested for\nfurther adjournment. Even after providing ample of opportunities and time the\nassessee completely failed to prove her claim, therefore, available information\nand material/facts on record suggest that income of Rs 66,65,000/- chargeable\nto fax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of Income Tax\nAct, 1961 for the relevant assessment year. In the absence of any further\nresponse from the assessee, it is presumed that the assessee has no explanation\nto offer in the issue. Therefore, it is proposed to treat the amount of Rs.\n66.65.000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 and will be added to the total income for the AY 2015-16\".\nIn the circumstances of the case, the appellant's contention that the cash\ndeposits found both the accounts maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd (as discussed\nabove) belonged to her husband and the total cash deposits in both accounts\nwere already considered as her husband's income is not acceptable in view of the\nfact that the assessment had already been passed ex-parte in her husband's\ncase by his AO on account of non-response to any notices issued to him and non-\nsubmission of any conclusive documentary proof thereof. In view of the fact that\nthe appellant had been non-co-operative and non-responsive throughout the\ncourse of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings, and in the given\nfactual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has rightly brought to\ntax the cash deposits in both the accounts (as discussed above). Therefore, I have\nno reason to interfere with the findings/observations of the AO. The addition\nmade by the AO is sustained and the ground raised is dismissed.\nGround No.4: Without considering facts and circumstances of the case, the\nlearned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.14,08,073/- in respect of sale\n/purchase of motor vehicle as unexplained expenditure under section 69C r.w.s\n115BBE.\nThe ground raised is examined carefully. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the AO had given numerous opportunities to the assessee-appellant\nto respond to the notices issued and to submit documentary proof for the\npurchase/sale of the motor vehicle for an amount of Rs.14,08,073/-. From the\nassessment order, it is observed that the appellant had not responded to any of\nthe notices issued, albeit only for seeking for adjournment. The appellant has also\nnot uploaded/submitted any concrete documentary proof for purchase/sale of the\nmotor vehicle. Therefore, the AO was constrained to bring to tax the entire amount\nof Rs.14,08,073/- as the unexplained expenditure of the appellant u/s 69C r.w.s.\n115BBE of the Act, 1961. The relevant para of the assessment order is\nreproduced below for clarity: (Page 10, Para 4.6.9):\n4.

6. 9. SALE/PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLE: During the FY 2014-15, the\nassessee purchased a motor vehicle worth Rs.14,08,073/- from Kothari Cars\nPvt. Ltd. The assessee failed to submit any documentary evidences/details on\nsource of purchase of car during the year under consideration even after getting\nample of opportunities. Therefore, in the absence of any valid material evidence in\nthe issue, it is proposed to treat Rs 14,08,073/- as unexplained expenditure u/s\n69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and will be added to the total\nincome for the AY 2015-16\".\nIn the Statement of Facts while filing the appeal, the appellant has\ncontended that she is either a joint account holder of vehicle purchased as a\nnominee only and is not directly involved in any financial transactions. The\nappellant further stated that the transactions based on which the income has\nbeen assessed are the transactions belonging to her husband i.e. Mr. Vitthal\nDimble (PAN:AGZPD8712) and as such, chargeable in the hands of her husband.\nThe appellant has not controverted this fact anywhere other than reiterating that\nshe is only a joint account holder and has no bearing/responsibilities in the\nfinancial transactions as above. The appellant further stated that, at best, she is\na nominee only and is not directly involved in any financial transactions. The\ncontention of the appellant is not acceptable. According to the appellant, she is a\nsalaried employee, employed as Lab Assistant at MSIHMCT, Pune, as such, in a\nresponsible position to be aware of what she is doing. In conclusion, it is\ncontended that the AO has followed due process of law while finalizing the\nassessment, keeping in view the principles of natural justice.\nIn view of the fact that the appellant had been non-co-operative and non-\nresponsive throughout the course of assessment proceedings and appellate\nproceedings, and in the given factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that\nthe AO has rightly treated the amount of Rs.14,08,073/- as unexplained\nexpenditure u/s 69C r.w.s.115BBE. The appellant failed to substantiate that the\nmotor vehicle belong to her husband, with proper documentary proof and in the\nabsolute absence of any valid material evidence, the AO brought the amount to tax.\nTherefore, I have no reason to interfere with the findings/observations of the AO.\nThe addition made by the AO is sustained and the ground raised is dismissed.\nGround No.5: Without considering facts and circumstances of the case, the\nlearned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.2,58,547/- in respect of credit\ncard bill payment of the Assessee as unexplained expenditure under section 69C\nr.w.s 115BBE.\nI have carefully considered the ground raised by the appellant. The AO\nwhile passing the assessment order stated at Page 10, Para 4.6.10, as under:\n4.

6. 10. CREDIT CARD BILL PAYMENT: The assessee had paid credit card\nbill to the tune of Rs.2,58,547/- during the FY 2014-15. During the course of\nassessment proceedings the assessee was provided with ample of opportunities\nto explain the source of payment of the credit card bill, but failed to produce any\nvalid documentary evidences/details which explains the source of payment of\ncredit card bill. Therefore, in the absence of explanation on source of payment of\ncredit card bills to the tune of Rs.2,58,547/- during the year, the source of\nexpenditure of Rs.2,58,547/- remains unexplained and it is proposed to treat\nexpenditure of Rs.2,58,547/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 and will be added to the total income for the AY\n2015-16.\nThe appellant in her Statement of Facts submitted while filing her appeal,\ncontended that she is a salaried employee and the gross salary earned by her\namounts to Rs.1,72,200/-. As such, the payment against the credit card bills of\nRs.2,58,547/- was made out of such salary. The remaining amount of credit card\nbills was made out from previous year's savings and from husband's pocket.\nThe appellant being a salaried employee, her contention is accepted as she\nhas the required sources to meet out such expenditure. The contention of the\nappellant is accepted and the ground raised

is allowed.\nGround Nos.6 & 7 are interconnected to each other, as such, they are adjudicated\ntogether, as under :-\nGround No.6: The learned AO has erred in not considering the return filed by the\nAssessee u/s 148 for the year consideration.\nGround No.7: The AO has erred in making additions in case of assessee whereas\nthe financial transactions for the year belong to assessee's husband Mr. Vitthal\nDimble.\nThe grounds raised by the appellant have been carefully considered. It is\nthe submission of the appellant (in the grounds of appeal) that the AO has erred\nin not considering the return filed and making additions, whereas, the financial\ntransactions for the year belong to assessee's husband Mr. Vitthal Dimble.\nHowever, neither in the Form No.35 and in the absence of any submissions being\nuploaded, the appellant has established as to how the assessment order passed\nnot proper.\nMerely raising a ground that the AO has erred in making additions to the\ntotal income of the assessee and not considering the return filed, without\nsubstantiating the claims made, does not make the order, as such, unless and\notherwise it is proved with sufficient material evidence and the reasons thereof.\nFrom the submissions, it is seen that the appellant has miserably failed to\nsubstantiate the same with material evidence. Therefore, the grounds raised are\ndismissed.\nGround Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are interconnected to each other, as such,\nthey are adjudicated together, as under-\nGround No.8: The re-assessment proceedings initiated in case of the Assessee are\nnot in keeping with provisions of law and needs to be cancelled.\nGround No 9: The learned AO erred in passing the assessment order without\naffording adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.\nGround No. 10: The learned AO has not considered the submissions made by the\nAssessee with respect to the re-assessment proceedings of the Assessee.\nGround No. 11: The assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s.144\nread with section 144B of the Act is not in keeping with the provisions of law and\nneed to be cancelled.\nGround No. 12: The Assessment made under section 147 read with section 144B\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law.\nI have carefully examined the grounds raised as above by the appellant.\nAs observed by the AO in the assessment order (Pages 1 to 4) dated\n19/02/2024, the appellant is an individual and resident who failed to file her\nreturn of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Subsequently, the Department received\ninformation in the appellant's case from the INSIGHT PORTAL, which suggested\nthat income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant A.Y. The\ninformation is that the appellant has deposited cash in Savings Bank Account in\nHDFC Bank Pvt Ltd to the tune of Rs.66,65,000/-. As can be seen from Page 2 of\nthe Assessment Order, the AO has given sufficient and reasonable opportunities\nof being heard to the assessee-appellant considering the principles of natural\njustice. The dates are\n(i) Notice u/s 148 Dated 05.04.2022\n(ii) Notice u/s 143(2) Dated 06.10.2023\n(iii) Notice u/s 142(1) Dated 17.02.2023\n(iv) AU

1. Letter dated 07.03.2023\n(v) Letter to Assessee Dated 24.05.2023\n(vi) Issued Centralized Communicatgion NaFAC Dated 23.06.2023\n(vii) Notice u/s 142(1) Dated 04.10.2023\n(viii) Notice u/s 142(1) Dated 19.10.2023\n(ix) Letter to Assessee Dated 20.12.2023\n(x) Letter to Assessee Dated 29.12.2023\nAs can be seen in the 'remarks column' of the table in Page 2 of the\nAssessment Order, it is seen that the appellant has filed her return of income in\nresponse to Notice issued u/s 148 dated 05/04/2022. For most of the\nnotices/letters issued, the assessee-appellant has responded, but only partially.\nThe appellant is seen to have not filed/uploaded the full details as called for by\nthe AO. Therefore, the AO was constrained to afford opportunities to the\nassessee-appellant as above. As information was received by the AO in the case\nof the assessee-appellant from the INSIGHT PORTAL, that there is substantial\ncash deposited in her bank account, which suggested that income chargeable to\ntax has escaped assessment. Therefore, in view of the fact that initially the\nappellant had not filed her return of income, only after issue of notice u/s 148,\nthe assessee-appellant filed her return of income. Therefore, the reason(s) that, (1)\nre-assessment proceedings initiated in case of the Assessee are not in keeping\nwith provisions of law, (2) passing the assessment order without affording\nadequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, (3) assessment order\npassed under section 147 r.w.s.144 read with section 144B of the Act is not in\nkeeping with the provisions of law and (4) Assessment made under section 147\nread with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, does not arise\nand hence rejected.\nAs regards the issue of learned AO has not considered the submissions\nmade by the Assessee, with respect to the re-assessment proceedings of the\nAssessee is concerned, I have carefully examined the Assessment Order dated\n19/02/2024. On going through the assessment order, it is seen that the\nappellant has responded partially only by seeking further time to gather details\nor sought adjournment. Therefore, the grounds raised, as above, are dismissed.\nGround No. 13:\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the\ngrounds of appeal.\nThis is a general ground raised that does not require adjudication.\n5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the\ngrounds of appeal relate thereto.\n6. The Ld. AR, at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has not\ndecided the appeal on merits on account of assessee's failure to submit the\nrequisite details before him. But the non-compliance before the Ld.\nCIT(A)/NFAC was not deliberate. He submitted that in Form 35, email id of\nassessee's husband was mentioned. Only two notices were issued dated\n06.12.2024 and 13.12.2024 in short span of 7 days and the husband of the\nassessee was on tour during that time due to which these notices could not be\nresponded by the assessee. The assessee came to know of the impugned\nexparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC only on receipt of the same. He\nfurther submitted that the written submission filed by the assessee during the\nassessment proceedings have not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He\nsubmitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and given an\nopportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case by filing the\nall the requisite details/ documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\nHe, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored\nto the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC or Ld. AO as deemed fit by the Bench, to decide\nthe issues afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity of hearing to\nthe assessee.\n7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily opposed the arguments advanced\nby the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that despite number of\nopportunities granted, the assessee never bothered to make any submission\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and filed only partial response before the Ld. AO.\nHe accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC should be\nupheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed.\n8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the\norders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It is an admitted fact that\ndespite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not make any\nsubmission before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC. The Ld. AR has explained the reason\nfor such non-compliance as sated above. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has allowed\npartial relief to the assessee for the reasons reproduced in the preceding\nparagraph. We find that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the appeal on\nmerits of the case due to lack of any submissions made by the assessee during\nthe appellate proceedings before him. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to\nsubstantiate her case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A)/\nNFAC.\n9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest\nof justice and without going into the merits of the appeal, we deem it proper to set\naside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC and restore the matter back to his file\nfor adjudication afresh on merits as per fact and law, after giving one more\nopportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed\nto provide correct/active email id to the Department and remain vigilant in\nreceiving the notices and file its reply/ make submissions thereof on the\nappointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing\nwhich the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per\nlaw. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are\naccordingly allowed for statistical purposes.\n10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes.\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2025.\nSd/-\n(R.K. Panda)\nVICE PRESIDENT\nSd/-\n(Astha Chandra)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nपुणे / Pune; दिनांक / Dated : 26th September, 2025.\nरवि\nआदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित /