Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs.20,430/-. The AO selected the case for scrutiny due to large cash deposits and property transactions. The AO added Rs.33,00,000/- as unexplained money and completed assessment at Rs.33,20,430/-.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of familiarity with electronic communication. The Tribunal restored the file to the NFAC with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity to present her case.
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, and whether the cash deposits were unexplained or represented a gift from the husband.
Sections Cited
69A, 143(3), 144B, 115BBE, 271AAC(1), 115BB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sarala Singh v. Income Tax Officer 4(3) 567/206A, Old Jail Road Lucknow Anand Nagar Alambagh, Lucknow TAN/PAN:CQFBS2682M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 27 01 2025 Date of pronouncement: 27 01 2025 O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 01.01.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2021-22.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 03.03.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.20,430/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that large cash was deposited in bank account and the assessee had also purchased/sold one or more property(ies) during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and furnished reply along with bank statements, details of properties sold and purchased, copies of purchase and sale deeds and details of payments. As per the Bank Account statement, the assessee had made a total cash deposits of Rs.33,00,000/- in her Saving Bank Account No.77370100014039 maintained with Bank of Baroda. Moreover, the assessee had also purchased a residential property for a consideration of Rs.66,00,000/- during the year under consideration. The AO, being convinced with the reply furnished by the assessee with regard to the investment in purchase of residential property for Rs.66,00,000/-, did not draw any adverse inference. However, not being convinced with the reply of the assessee regarding the cash deposits of Rs.33,00,000/-, the AO treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,20,430/-.
2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1)of the Act, separately.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred and was not justified in serving notices online and none of the notice was sent physically, accordingly the appellant could not attend to the notices not belonging to the appellant, as such the appellant was denied the opportunity of filing the submissions, thus the appellate order was issued without serving the proper notices to the appellant and the assessing officer grossly erred in applying the provision of sec. 115BB wherein income tax @60% was charged.
2. That the NFAC was not justified and failed in confirming that the appellant received the gift in cash aggregating to Rs.33,00,000/- from her husband which was deposited in the bank account of the appellant despite explaining that the amount was received by the appellant from the sale proceeds of the agricultural land held by her husband and the said amount was treated as income of the appellant.
3. That the NFAC erred and was not justified in confirming that the sources of cash deposit aggregating to Rs.33,00,000/- as unexplained and added to total income of the appellant as unexplained money u/s 69A of 1.T. Act 1961.
4. That the NFAC erred against fact and circumstances of the case in confirming that the assessing officer was not justified in applying the provisions of section u/s 69A of 1.T. Act 1961 and ignoring the fact that the appellant had received cash gift aggregating to Rs.33,00,000/- from her husband.
That the AU erred against facts and law in confirming and taxing the additions made of Rs.33,00,000/- as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.
6. That the AU erred and was not justified in confirming that the cash deposit or Rs.33,00,000/- was utilized by the appellant and her husband for purchase of residential house and constructing it thereon as per present needs. 7. That the appeal to the above extent is against facts and law. 8. That the appellant be allowed to raise any other grounds of appeal
during the course of appellate proceedings.
5. During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there is a delay of 300 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 21.12.2024 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the impugned order of the NFAC was served electronically on the email id “ssarla548@gmail.com” on 01.01.2024. It has been further stated that the assessee and her husband, not being conversant with the electronic media and internet, did not access the email and only when the Income Tax Portal was opened by the assessee on 12.12.2024 to check the status of the appeal filed before the NFAC that she came to know about the same and for this reason the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. The prayer of the assessee was that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it was beyond the control of the assessee, which may please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.
The Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the delay being condoned.
In view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.
None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application received in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the Ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the NFAC.
I have heard the Ld. Sr. D.R. and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the NFAC with the direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to present her case and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the NFAC in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the NFAC would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/01/2025.