SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

2. That no trustee including trustee cum secretary Hari Charan Singhal, knows how to operate/work on a computer etc. I understand that E-mail ID- 'ARVINDFCA98@GMAIL.COM' available with the I.T. Department in the case of abovenamed trust, namely, Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, is that of Arvind K Khandelwal CA and not that of the above named trust nor of its any trustee nor of the secretary.In support of the contentions so raised the Authorized person has filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

3. I say that before 23/11/2024, the assessee trust did not receive on E-mail nor in any physical form the dismissal order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act dated 30/06/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi in the case of above named trust. In other words it is stated that till 23/11/2024 above named trust did not receive any order of dismissal of appeal for AY. 2011-12 from the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

4. That first time I got a communication from abovenamed Arvind K Khandelwal on 20/11/2024 that a show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) dated 18/11/2024 accompanied with an annexure has been issued in the name of the trust asking the trust to show cause as to why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust not be levied in its case. He further informed that in the annexure of this notice under section 271(1)(c) it has been mentioned that the Id. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054066417(1) dated 30/06/2023.

In support of the contentions so raised the Authorized person has filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in these appeal submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties and the delay of 480 days in lack of knowledge resulted in delay. Considering the decision of the apex court in Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) wherein it was directed the other courts to consider the liberal approach in deciding the petition for condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk. Ld. AR of the assessee also cited various judgment in his prayer for condonation of delay. 3.3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by assessee for condonation of delay of 480 days are sufficient to condone the delay and it has merit based on the prayer advanced by the assessee. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delay 480 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and inclined to decide the appeal on its merits.

3. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in law notice issued u/s 148 on 23/03/2018 reassessment order passed u/s 144/147 dated 13/12/2018 and impugned order

3. That the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition made by the A.O. by way of treating the source of renewed term deposits (i.e. time deposits) aggregating to Rs. 10,94,548 as unverified and consequently adding the same in the total income of the assessee as unexplained income of the assessee trust, which sustaining of treating of the source of renewed term deposits aggregating to Rs. 10,94,548 as unverified and consequently adding the same as unexplained income of the assessee trust is most arbitrary, unjust, untenable and in the alternative excessive.

4. That the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the entire term deposits aggregating to Rs. 10,94,548 was the renewal of term deposits taken by the assessee trust in earlier years and not a fresh term deposit taken in the previous year relevant to subject assessment year.

5. That the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,28,194 made by the A.O. by way of treating the source of cash deposit of Rs. 14,28,194 allegedly made by the assessee in its bank account as unverified and consequently adding such alleged cash amount of Rs. 14,28,194 in the total income of the assessee as unexplained income of the assessee trust, which sustaining of treating the source of alleged cash deposit of Rs. 14,28,194 in bank as unverified and consequently adding the same as unexplained income of the assessee trust is most arbitrary, unjust and untenable.

6. That the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee trust did not have any bank account in the previous year relevant to subject assessment year nor did it deposit any cash in R any bank account in the previous year relevant to subject assessment year.

7. That the Id Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 82,084 made by the A.O. by way of treating interest income on term deposits as undisclosed income of the assessee, which treatment of interest income on term deposits as undisclosed income is most arbitrary and unjust and not maintainable in law.

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust 8. That the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the total income of the assessee from interest accrued on term deposits in the previous year relevant to subject assessment year is of Rs. 82,084 only in the previous year relevant to subject assessment year and this income of Rs. 82,084 is much below the maximum not taxable limit under income tax act and as such the assessee was not required to file any return of income.

9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and substitute one or more grounds of appeal as and when necessary.”

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust alongwith questionnaire was issued on 31/08/2018 fixing the date of hearing on 07/09/2018 which was returned undelivered. Since, assessee has not furnished return of income in response to notice u/s 148, a show- cause letter for finalization of proceedings u/s 144 of the Act was issued dated 04/12/2018.

4.1 However, no reply whatsoever has been submitted either on-line or manually by the assessee trust. The above sequence of events shows the non-cooperative and total recalcitrant attitude of the assessee in getting its assessment proceedings completed. Right from the beginning, all efforts were made by issuing notices from time to time and served upon the assessee. But it did not come up with the required details to complete the pending assessment proceedings. This being a time barring matter and getting barred by limitation on 31/12/2018 and no return of income is filed in response to notice us 148, the undersigned is left with no other option except to complete the proceedings ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act as proposed in the show-cause letter.

4.2 Further, since assessee trust/society did not furnish any documentary evidence to show that it has been issued registration certificate u/s 12A 12ΑΛ of the LT Act, 1961 by the Competent Authority of Income-tax Department, no benefit of exemption is Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust allowable to it. Even otherwise also, since it had failed to furnish a return of income as provided u/s 139(4A)/139(4C) of IT Act, 1961, it is not eligible for the benefit of exemption. Therefore, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the source of time deposit and cash deposits amount to Rs. 25,22,742/- remained unverified and is thus taken as the unexplained income of the assesses trust/society for the A.Y. 2011- 12.

5. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:-

“Decision: 6. Ground of Appeal

No.1 “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in doing assessment order without considering the fact that assessee has income of Rs. 82,084/- only and there is no other income of the assessee. 6.1 In this grounds of appeal No.1, the contention of the appellant is that the appellant had income of Rs.82,084/- only during the year under consideration and there was no other Income. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the other additions made by the assessing officer towards time deposits of Rs. 10,94,548/- and cash deposits of Rs.14,28,194/- are confirmed in other grounds of appeal in this order. Accordingly, this grounds of appeal No. 1 is required to be dismissed. 6.2 Therefore, this grounds of appeal No. 1 is dismissed.

7. Grounds of appeal No.2

2. The learned assessing officer has erred considering entire time deposit of Rs. 10,94,548/- as income of the year 2011-12 while no new time deposit was Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust made during the year and entire deposit was the renewal of earlier period time deposit. 7.1 In this grounds of appeal

No.2, the contention of the appellant is that the assessing officer erred in considering entire time deposit of Rs. 10,94,548/- as income of the year 2011-12, while no new time deposit was made during the year and entire deposit was the renewal of earlier period. In this regard, the appellant made written submissions, which are reproduced here as under 3. The humble assessee want to submit that allegation of the assessing officer that assessee had made time deposit of Rs. 10,94,548 during the year is wrong and against the fact 3.1 The humble assessee want to submit that assessee has not made any new fixed deposit during the year 13 32 The humble assessee want to submit that the year which was running from last several years and no new fixed deposit was made during the year. 3.3 We are herewith submitting statement of fixed deposit received from bank which will clear that there was old fixed deposit which has been renewed during the year. The detail of renewal is attached herewith Statement Renewal done on 10/01/2011 for Rs. 3,65,599/- Statement 2 Renewal done on 27/10/2020 For Rs. 3,63,062/- Statement 3 Renewal done on 19/01/2011 For Rs. 3,65,887/- 3.4 We further want to submit that this foxed deposit are very old and renewing since inception of the trust. We are herewith submitting statement 4 This statement shown that fixed deposit was made on 27/07/2009 for Rs. 3,33,646 of which maturity was suppose to happen on 27/10/2020 for Rs. 3,66,120/- This deposit has been renewed as Rs 3,63,062/- on 27/10/2020 and Rs. 3,058/- has been deducted as TDS 35 Therefore all this fixed deposit which has been made during the year is renewal of earthier period feed deposit and no new feed deposit has been made during the year 3.6 Since no new fixed deposit has been made during the year so addition in income on account of new fixed deposit made tuning the year is wrong, against the facts and therefore this addition should be deleted at this stage only. 3.7 Humble appellant want to submit that the figures appearing in the statement are small and sometimes not visible by naked eyes. We will request Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust you to check the figures and facts of statement submitted on system by zooming the documents 4. We further want to submit that the Trust was formed in memory of the parents of certain persons and this amount is carrying in the trust from more than 10 years. The assesses want to donate this amount for charitable purpose and that why the amount is carrying on from last many years and not used Therefore taxing of amount which was created way back will te wrong and unethical 7.2 In addition to the above, the appellant submitted copies of bank statements, the screen shots of the same are affixed here as under 7.3 On perusal of the above bank statement, it is seen that the amount of Rs 3,63,062/-, Receipt No. 248/244/47671, dated: 27.10.2010 and maturity date is 10.01.2011. This means the amount of Rs 3,63,062/- was deposited on 27.10.2010 and the maturity date was on 10.01.2011. Though the particulars mentioned as RENEW, no evidence is available with regard to from which date the Renewal had taken place. It is pertinent to mention that the date 27.10.2010 also falls in Financial year 2010-11 relevant to the Asst. Year 2011-12. The appellant also did not give any reason as to why this document was not produced before the Assessing Officer. ………………………………………………………. 7.4 On perusal of the above bank statement, it is seen that the amount of Rs.3.65,599/- Receipt No. 248/244/47698, dated: 10.01.2011 and maturity date is 10.01.2013. This means the amount of Rs.3,65,599/- was deposited on 10.01.2011 and the maturity date was on 10.01.2013. Though the particulars mentioned as RENEW, no evidence is available with regard to from which date the Revewal had taken place. It is pertinent to mention that the date 10.01.2011 also falls in Financial year 2010-11 relevant to the Asst Year 2011-12. The appellant also did not give any reason as to why this document was not produced before the Assessing Officer. …………………………………………………….. 7.5 On perusal of the above bank statement, it is seen that the amount of Rs.3,65,887/-, Receipt No. 248/244/90232, dated: 19.01.2011 and maturity date is 20.01.2013. This means the amount of Rs.3,65,887/- was deposited on 19.01.2011 and the maturity date was on 20.01.2013. Though the particulars mentioned as'RENEW, no evidnece is available with regard to from which date the 'Revewal' had taken place. It is pertinent to mention that the date 19.01.2011 also falls in Financial year 2010-11 relevant to the Asst. Year Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust 2011-12. The appellant also did not give any reason as to why this document was not produced before the Assessing Officer. 7.6 On perusal of the above statements submitted by the appellant, it is noticed that they cannot be taken as evidence to prove that the deposits made by the appellant are renewal. Therefore, no documentary evidence in support of its contentions have been submitted by the appellant, except the above affixed statements, which are also not showing any evidence to prove that the time deposited as stated by the appellant are renewals. 7.7 Further, the details of deposits made by the appellant have been retrieved from the 360 degrees module in departments ITBA system. The screen shots of the same are affixed here as under:- …………………………… 7.9 In view of the above, the appellant's contention that the total deposits of Rs. 10,94,548 made by the appellant are renewals of time deposits, which were deposited long back are not acceptable. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in respect of addition of Rs. 1094548 made by the assessing Officer in the order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.12.2018 for the Asst. Year 2011-12. Accordingly, this grounds of appeal

No.2 is required to be dismissed. 7.10 Therefore, this grounds of appeal No.2 is dismissed.

8. Grounds of appeal No.3 The learned assessing officer has erred adding Rs. 14,28,194/- as cash deposit despite of the fact the assessee do not have any bank account during the period 8.1 In this grounds of appeal No.3, the contention of the appellant is that the assessing office erred in addition Rs. 14,28,194/- as cash deposit despite of the fact that the appellant did not have any bank account during the period. In this regard, the appellant made written submissions, which are reproduced here as under:

2. The humble appellant want to submit that assessee has never deposited any cash amount in any of its bank account 2.1 The assessee want to submit that assessee do not have any bank account with any bank in which cash amount can be deposited 2.2 Assessee further want to submit that assessing officer has failed to bring any cognizant material which can prove that asseseee has deposited cash in any bank account Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust 2.3 Assessee want to submit that learned assessing officer has failed in establishing that in which bank account the amount has been deposited. The learned assessing officer has not given name of the bank, account number date of deposit or any other detail by which it can be proved that any cash amount has been deposited in bank account 2.4 Assessee want to submit that assesses do not have any saving bank of current account in which any cash amount can be deposited 2.5 Therefore, allegation of the assessing officer that Rs. 14,28,1941/- has been deposited as cash by the assessee is false, without fact and not corroborated by any cognizant evidence. 8.2 In the written submissions made by the appellant, it is stated the appellant never deposited any cash amount in any of its bank and it has further stated that it did not have any bank account with any bank in which cash amount can be deposited. The appellant further contended that the assessing officer had not given name of the bank, account number, date of deposit or any other details by which it could be proved that any cash amount had been deposited in bank account. In this regard, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that the details of deposits made by the appellant are available in the 360 degrees profile of the departmental website of ITBA' The screen shot taken from the ITBA is affixed here as under:…………………………………. 8.3 As seen from the above screen shot, it is clearly apparent that the appellant made deposit of Rs.14,29, 194/-in Rajasthan State Cooperative bank on 31.03.2011 bearing account No. 282444. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant in the grounds of appeal

No. 3 raised by the appellant is not acceptable. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in respect of addition of Rs.1429194 made by the assessing Officer in the order under section 144 rw.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.12.2018 for the Asst Year 2011-12. Accordingly, this grounds of appeal No.3 is required to be dismissed . 8.4 Therefore, this grounds of appeal No.3 is dismissed.

9. Grounds of appeal No.4

4. The learned assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty Uls 271(1) of the Act since assessee has not suppressed any of the income during the year 9.1 In this grounds of appeal NO.4, the appellant contended that the assessing officer erred n initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since the appellant had not suppressed any of the income during the year. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the assessing officer only Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but not finalized. Therefore, it is premature to adjudicate this ground of appeal

Accordingly, this grounds of appeal NO.4 is required to be treated as dismissed 9.2 Therefore, this grounds of appeal No.4 is dismissed.

10. Grounds of appeal No.5

5. The humble appellant reserves its right to add, alter, or delete any of the ground of appeal during the course of hearing. 10.1 During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant did not add, alter or delete any of the ground of appeal during the course of hearing. Therefore, this ground of appeal No.5 is dismissed.

11. Disposal of appeal: 11.1. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.”

6. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A). The present appeal filed against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) before us on the grounds as reiterated here in above. To support the grounds so raised the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the written submission which is extracted herein below:-

“May it please the hon'ble Bench, With reference to above it is very respectfully submitted as under: GROUNDS OF APPEAL

No.1 This ground of appeal is against sustaining by the Id. CIT(A) action of the AD for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147, issuing notice u/s. 148 and consequently passing by the AO the relevant assessment order adding an amount of Rs. 26,04,826/- in the total income of assessee. In support of this ground of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under:

1. That as per the assessment order information is available with the department that the assessee made time deposits of Rs. 10,94,548/-, cash deposits of Rs. 14,28,194 and it earned interest income from deposits in Co-operative bank at Rs. 82,084.It is Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust further written that as the assessee has not filed return of income, the above mentioned income has escaped assessment as per section 147. It is further noted that notice u/s 148 was issued but in response to it no return of income was filed.

2. However, the assessee recollects that no such notice was received. In this regard it is submitted that it is a settled position of law that notice u/s. 148 cannot be issued on borrowed satisfaction and accordingly the Id. CIT(A) should have cancelled the notice u/s. 148 as well as the relevant -assessment order because it clearly comes out that the AD has acted on mere suspicion and conjectures. The fact is that neither any fresh time deposit was made nor any cash amount was deposited in bank a/c. So much so the assessee had no bank a/c during the relevant previous year. The fact comes out is that during the relevant previous year old time deposits were renewed.

4. That the Indian Courts including the Apex Court have time and again held that action u/s.147 of the I.T. Act 1961 cannot be taken for reopening assessment if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far-fetched and remote. The courts have also held that there must be a live link or close nexus between the material coming to the knowledge of the A.Q. and the formation of his belief.

5. In support of above submissions, the appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon some judicial pronouncements mentioned in annexure to these written submissions GROUND OF APPEAL

No.2 In this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the arbitrariness of the lower authorities. In its support it is respectfully submitted as under-

1. That the entire facts mentioned in the orders are not correct and rather wrong, baseless and based on surmises and conjectures.

2. That while passing the orders, the lower authorities did not make any inquiry to verify the correctness of the facts being relied upon by them.

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust 3. That in view of passing of the orders whimsically and without inquiring the correctness of the facts relied upon by the lower authorities the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) and the relevant assessment order passed by the AO are not maintainable in law.

4. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in passing arbitrarily and unjustifiably the impugned order ex parte without providing to the appellant opportunity of being heard and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. GROUND OF APPEAL

No.3 & 4 Both these grounds of appeal are against sustaining by the Id. CIT(A) action of the AO of treating the source of renewed term deposits during F.Y. 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011 aggregating to Rs. 10,94,548/- as un verified and consequently adding the same in the total income of assessee as unexplained income. In support of these grounds of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under-

1. That the appellant did not take any new term deposit (i.e. time deposit) during the period 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011.

2. That during the period 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011 following renewal of earlier term deposit (Le. time deposit) was made: Renewal done for receipt no. 248/2444/47698 on 10/01/2011 for Rs. 3,65,599/- Renewal done for receipt no. 248/2444/47672 on 27/10/2010 for Rs. 3,63,062/- Renewal done for receipt no. 248/2444/47767 on 19/01/2011 for Rs. 3.65.887/- Total Rs. 10,94,548/-

3. That in support of above, the assessee submitted bank statements before the lower authorities. The bank statements form part of the paper book being filed simultaneously. From the perusal of these bank statements the han'ble tribunal will kindly observe that above mentioned amounts represent renewal of earlier term deposit (le. time deposit) and it further shows that no new term deposit (ie. time deposit) has been taken by the appellant

4. That the above trust was formed long back for charitable purposes and the proceeds of these three term deposits (i.e. time deposits) is to be utilized for charitable purposes only.

5. That the learned lower authorities failed to discharge the burden of proof which squarely lay upon them for holding the renewal of old term deposits (ie. time deposits) with bank as new one aggregating to Rs. 10.94,548/ as unexplained money of the Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust assessee. in support of holding alleged renewal of old term deposits with bank by the assessee as unexplained money there is not a single evidence with the AO in its support. The consensus of judicial opinion in this regard is that there must be some concrete evidence with the AD as to how and on what basis and on what material in hand he is alleging any renewal of term deposits in a bank as unverified and unexplained and simultaneously treating it as unexplained income of the assessee 6. That before sustaining the above mentioned additions the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that before making additions no enquiries were made by the A.O.

7. That before sustaining the above mentioned additions the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the A.O. did not serve on assessee any show cause notice to the above effect before making additions.

8. That both the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order which is against natural justice making such orders passed by them not maintainable in law.

9. That the appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon some judicial pronouncements as per annexure. GROUND OF APPEAL

No. 5 & 6 Both these grounds of appeal are against sustaining by the Id. CIT(A) action of the AO of treating the source of cash deposit of Rs. 14,28,194 allegedly made by the assessee in its bank account as un verified and consequently adding such alleged cash amount of Rs. 14,28,194/- in the total income of the assessee as unexplained income. In support of these grounds of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under-

1. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate that during the period 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011 the assessee had no bank account ie. neither any savings account nor any current account in its name anywhere in any bank, nationalized as well as non- nationalized.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not deposit cash amount of Rs. 14,28,194/- in any bank account in its name in India nor out of India because it had no bank account in its name.

3. That both the lower authorities failed to bring on record any supporting material which could show that the assessee possessed such and such bank account in its name and such and such cash amount has been deposited by it during the period 01/04/2010 tο 31/03/2011 relevant to subject assessment year in such and such bank

4. That both the lower authorities failed to bring on record the account number of assessee's alleged bank account nor did he place on record name and place of such Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust bank where the cash amount was deposited on such and such date. In other words the lower authorities failed in establishing that the assessee has deposited such and such cash amount in such and such bank on such and such date and place.

5. That in sum and substance the allegation of the lower authorities that assessee has deposited a cash amount of Rs. 14,28,194/ in a bank account bearing such and such number and at such and such place and such and such dates is false without any basis and not corroborated by any sort of evidence: 6. That the learned AO failed to discharge the burden of proof which squarely lay upon him for describing the cash allegedly deposited by the assessee in a bank account aggregating to Rs 14,28,194 as unexplained money. In support of making alleged cash deposit by the assessee in bank account of the assessee as unexplained money there is not a single evidence with the AO in Its support. The consensus of judicial opinion in this regard is that there must be some concrete evidence with the AO as to how and on what basis and on what material in hand he is alleging any cash deposits in a bank account by the assessee and simultaneously treating it as unexplained income of the assessee.

7. That before sustaining the above mentioned additions the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that before making additions no enquiries were made by the A.O.

8. That before sustaining the above mentioned additions the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the A.O. did not serve on assessee any show cause notice to the above effect before making additions.

9. That both the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order which is against natural justice making the orders passed by them not maintainable in law.

No. 7 &

8. Both these ground of appeals are against the additions made by the Ld. CIT (A) by way of sustaining the additions of Rs. 82,084/- made by the AO in regard to income from interest at Rs. 82,084/-. In this regard it is submitted as under-

1. That as per the bank statement the interest income allowed on above said three term deposits (ie. time deposits) comes to Rs. 10,208/- (interest on term deposit no. 248/2444/47698 at Rs. 3171+ interest on term deposit no. 248/2444/47672 at Rs. 361 Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust interest on term deposit no. 248/2444/47767 at Rs. 6676) and not Rs. 82,084/- as added by the AO and later on sustained by the Ld. CIT (A),

2. That the amount of addition in the nature of interest income at Rs. 52,084/- unjustified and in the alternative it is excessive with reference to facts and circumstances of the case.

Ground of Appeal No. 9 It is of general nature and may please be decided according.”

7. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the Ld. AO has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. All the trustees are senior citizens. Even Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that renewal of FDR cannot consider as income. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. AO in the interest of equity and justice.

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust 10. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/03/2025.