NYRAA HIREN GADHER (ALIAS ARCHANA KISHORKUMAR CHAWLA),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

At the outset, after perusing the grounds mentioned in Form No. 36 and the written submissions filed by the assessee in the form of a statement of facts, it is evident that the sole effective issue for adjudication before the Tribunal pertains to the assessee's grievance against the addition of Rs.11,43,000/-

During the hearing on 27.11.2024, the issue was extensively argued. Upon examination of the order-sheet entry of the same date, it is apparent that this entry provides sufficient basis for the adjudication of the matter. Accordingly, I rely on the facts as noted in the said order-sheet entry dated 27.11.2024 for clarity and convenience in adjudicating this case.

The orders of the lower authorities indicate that the assessee remained unrepresented during proceedings before both the AO and the CIT(A). The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee, a woman from a rural background and a non-filer of income tax returns, was unfamiliar with the technicalities of income tax law. The proceedings during the assessment stage were managed by her father, who subsequently passed away, leaving the matter unattended. When the case was pending before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had married and again failed to pursue the appeal.

The ld.counsel further argued that the bank account in question, where the alleged cash deposits were made, did not belong to the assessee. This argument was consistently presented before the Tribunal in prior hearings. On 20.05.2024, the Tribunal directed the assessee to procure confirmation from ICICI Bank regarding ownership of the account in question. Subsequently, on 05.06.2024, the assessee submitted a Considering the assessee’s limited knowledge of tax law and her inability to handle the intricacies of the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal admitted the confirmation letter filed by her counsel, Shri Lachhman V. Chawla. The letter indicated that the account in question was not maintained by the assessee, and this fact contradicted the observations of the AO. A copy of the confirmation letter was shared with the Ld.DR, who was instructed to obtain a report from the AO regarding its veracity. The DR requested 15 days to submit the report, and the matter was adjourned to 19.12.2024. The Tribunal directed the DR to ensure the Department’s full cooperation in expediting the case.

On 10.12.2024, the ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad, submitted an email to the Tribunal, confirming that ICICI Bank had informed the Department that the account number 204110110000341 was not associated with the bank. The email is on record. When questioned by the Bench regarding the veracity of the ICICI Bank’s letter, the DR did not dispute its contents and the confirmation.

After considering the submissions of both parties and the materials on record, it is clear from the order-sheet entry dated 27.11.2024 and the subsequent compliance by the Department that the impugned bank account was not linked to the assessee. Consequently, the foundation for reopening the assessment under Section 147 and making the addition falls flat. The

The action of the Revenue authorities in making this addition without proper verification lacks merit and cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside, and the addition is deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.