RESHMA MOHMAD SUHED SINDHI,ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ANAND, ANAND
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member
And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member
Reshma Mohmad Suhed
Sindhi, Anmol Petrol
Pump, Opp Police Choki
Dakor Anand Road
Bhalej
PAN: ABAPH6204J
(Appellant)
Vs
The ITO,
Ward-1
Anand
(Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri Piyush Panchal, A.R.
Revenue by: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R.
Date of hearing
: 26-11-2025
Date of pronouncement
: 18-12-2025
आदेश/ORDER
Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 06-01-
2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC),
Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. The CIT(A) has made error in dismissing the appeal on ground of non submission of reply to Notice u/s 250 of the Act without referring the evidence and ground of appeal as well as attachment of SBI Certificate/with Form 35. 2. Addition made by AO of Rs. 77,07,000 on surmise and assumption without having positive evidence. There is no provision in the act which provide obligation on part of assessee
Assessment Year 2017-18
I.T.A No. 687/Ahd/2025
Reshma Mohmad Suhed Sindhi, A.Y. 2017-18
2
to keep record of deposit of demonetized currencies in the account. So the addition on ground of non explanation of cash deposit during 04.12.2026 to 30.12.2016 is not made in demonetized currencies empower to add such deposit of cash into bank account as unexplained credit.
It is department which has alleged that assessee has made demonetized currencies. Department has not sustain the allegation with any piece of evidence or information. Department failed to sustain its claim and hence addition of Rs. 77,07,000 as alleged as cash deposit of demonetized currencies is factually not correct and justifiable.
When the cash is explained that it is made from sale of petroleum products and CNG sale business, section 69A would not apply.
Assessee while filing appeal already referred the additional evidence in the first ground of appeal under issue in appeal, but CIT(A) without going through the appeal records, dismissed the appeal on ground of non compliance of notice u/s 250 of the Act, wholly unjustifiable and need to be deleted.
Assessment by AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is not justifiable and need to be deleted.
Assessee pray to add, alter, delete or modify the ground of appeal at any stage in the interest of justice.
Prayer
Assessee pray to delete the demand as deposit of Rs. 77,07,000
is not of demonetized currencies.
To issue such order as your office may find justifiable in view of fact of the case.”
The assessee is an individual filed return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 07-11-2017 admitting total income of Rs. 12,80,770/-. The assessee has a dealership of petrol/diesel selling with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. During the year, the assessee derived income from business or profession. The return was duly processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act by accepting the income returned by the assessee on 19-11-2017. As the I.T.A No. 687/Ahd/2025
Reshma Mohmad Suhed Sindhi, A.Y. 2017-18
3
information available with the Department, it was observed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 10 crore in her bank account during financial year 2016-17 relating to assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 on 30-03-2021 with prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda requiring the assessee to furnish return of income within 30 days from the service of notice. The assessee failed to file return of income within 30 days from the receipt of notice issued u/s.
148. Therefore, further notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 12-11-2021 requiring the assessee to file return of income by 29-11-2021 and also to explain the source for cash deposit of Rs. 10 crore during the year. The assessee filed return of income on 29-11-2021 admitting total income of Rs. 12,80,717/-. Since the assessee failed to file return of income within the stipulated time specified in the notice u/s. 148 dated 30-03-2021. The return filed on 29-11-2021
was treated invalid. In response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated
30-11-2021, the assessee submitted copy of trading account, profit and loss account, balance sheet, computation of total income and bank account statement for the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year
2017-18. The bank manager in response to notice u/s.
133(6) submitted the bank statements for the period from 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2017 but has not provided the details related to demonetized notes. During the year, the turnover of the assessee was Rs. 16,03,18,782/- and the assessee in column no. 13(a) has shown cash deposits during demonetization period at Rs. 1,82,82,000/-. The Assessing
I.T.A No. 687/Ahd/2025
Reshma Mohmad Suhed Sindhi, A.Y. 2017-18
4
Officer held that due to failure of the assessee to furnish details of denomination of discarded notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes and also the details of date wise purchases and sales and date wise cash book, the cash deposits of Rs.
1,82,82,000/- made by the assessee during demonetization period was not accepted. Show cause notice issued on 27-
03-2022 proposed to treat the said cash made during demonetization period as unexplained u/s. money u/s. 69A of the Act and treated the cash deposits of Rs. 77,07,000/- during the period of 03-12-2016 to 30-12-2016 as unexplained income u/s. 16A of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not asked about the details of period from 03-12-2016 to 30-12-2016 and in fact all the details were categorically given by the assessee. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and has not taken into account the additional evidences filed by the assessee.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is found that before the CIT(A) the assessee has filed the details of the additional evidence related to the deposits made
I.T.A No. 687/Ahd/2025
Reshma Mohmad Suhed Sindhi, A.Y. 2017-18
5
from 03-12-2016 to 30-12-2016 which was submitted as additional evidence and the same was totally ignored by the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and it will be appropriate to remit back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper verification of the additional evidence and adjudicate the issue on merit as per Income Tax Law.
Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18-12-2025 (Narendra Prasad Sinha) (Suchitra Kamble)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Ahmedabad : Dated 18/12/2025
a.k.
आदेश क त
ल प अे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपीलय अधकरण,
अहमदाबाद