SHRI MUKESH KUMAR,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), SHAHJAHANPUR

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 23/09/2020 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(A.1) The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short). In the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay duly supported by affidavit, it is stated that there is no limitation in view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 23/03/2020 taking cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition in the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 virus. It was accordingly requested to condone the delay. At the time of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not press the limitation issue, and agreed to the appeal being decided on merits. Accordingly, I do not treat the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed in time, and is being decided on merits.

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee was engaged in the business of wholesale trading business of general goods i.e. biscuit, soap etc. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 29/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,97,670/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on total income of Rs.14,34,850/- after making addition of Rs.11,37,183/- u/s 69A of the Act being unexplained money deposited in the bank. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who gave part relief to the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs.1,44,500/-. The remaining amount of total addition of aforesaid amount of Rs.11,37,183/- was deleted by learned CIT(A). Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,44,500/- deposited in bank belonged to the wife of the assessee as the account was in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. Learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the amount deposited by his wife was her Stridhan accumulated over a period of many years from out of savings from periodical funds provided to her for house hold expenses, and from out of gifts of nominal amounts received from relatives, friends and acquaintances at the time of ceremonial occasions. He also submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), affidavit from the wife of the assessee was also filed, which was not considered. He prayed that the addition of Rs.1,44,500/- has been unduly and unjustly sustained by the learned CIT(A), which should be deleted. Learned D.R. for Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A).