PURNIMA PRIYADARSHI,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BIHARSHRIF

For that the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.3,15,000/on account of undisclosed investment under section 69A of the Act is bad and illegal and also against the provision of law because the said amount in question were recorded/accounted for in the books of account and the said amount is part of sell which effected by assessee by making sell of cattle feeds before the date of demonetization and the assessee has kept cash in his hand to make payment to labourers etc for smooth running of business.

For that the income of assessee is below taxable limit, as such, appellant is not require to file return, hence the addition of Rs.2,67,254 is bad and arbitrary.

For that the computation of income under section 115 BBE and levy of tax on that basis is bad and illegal in view of the fact that the assessee was carrying on business and amount deposited in bank was part of sell of commodities/goods, as such, addition on account of unexplained investment and levy of tax of higher rate cannot be made.

For that the grounds taken herein above are not prejudicial to each other.

For that any other grounds may be taken at the time of hearing.” I.T.A. No.: 435/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Purnima Priyadarshi.

Brief facts of the case are that a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 15.03.2018 requiring the assessee to file the return of income as per the conditions and manner prescribed in Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 but the assessee failed to furnish the same. It was noted by the Ld. AO that in Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Biharsharif A/c. No. 50306373973, out of total amount credited during FY 2016- 17 at Rs. 36,55,678/-, a sum of Rs. 14,57,500/- was the cash deposited during the demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 and as the return of income was not filed, the source of cash deposit remained unexplained. Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act was initiated and a show cause notice was issued which was not complied with but in response to the final show cause notice the assessee submitted that the cash was deposited throughout the year including during the demonetization period and the same was out of sale proceeds of cattle feeds. Copy of sale and purchase ledger and copy of bank statements were filed. Since the required evidence was not filed, the Ld. AO analysed the submission made and held that a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- was unexplained money which was added u/s 69A of the Act. The rest of the amount of cash deposit of Rs. 33,40,678/- was considered as the assessee’s turnover of the business and was subjected to net profit of 8% which worked out to Rs. 2,67,254/- and the total income was assessed at Rs. 5,82,254/- u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 31.03.2024 dismissed the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has extracted the relevant paras of the assessment order and since despite granting sufficient opportunities of being heard, the appellant did not make any submission, he held that the assessee had no specific submissions and documentary evidences to file in respect of I.T.A. No.: 435/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Purnima Priyadarshi. the relief claimed and dismissed all the grounds of appeal as well as the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR sought adjournment on the date of hearing as the assessee wanted to file written submission and the paper book with respect to the deposits made in the bank account because the issues in the impugned order related to deposit made in the bank account. The Bench noted that the assessee had assailed the appellate order on account of lack of proper opportunity and non- consideration of evidence and documents available on record and the appellant was unaware of the appellate proceeding as he was living in a remote rural area and not conversant with the computer and online system. Since the assessment order as well as the appeal order were both ex parte, and as there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), hence in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered appropriate that the request of the assessee to set aside the case may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, the adjournment was refused and it was deemed appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to him for deciding afresh. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to be done afresh. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of the relief claimed as she has submitted that the cash deposit was out of the sale proceeds for which necessary evidence is in the possession of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) shall also grant an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO or call for the remand report. I.T.A. No.: 435/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Purnima Priyadarshi. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th March, 2025. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 05.03.2025 Bidhan (P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 435/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Purnima Priyadarshi. Copy of the order forwarded to:

Purnima Priyadarshi, D/o Satish Prasad, Shanti Sadan, Udanpuri, Garhper, Biharshrif, Nalanda, Patna, Bihar, 803101. 2. ITO, Ward-2(3), Biharsharif.

ADDL/JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Patna Bench, Patna.

Guard File. //// By order