LABHUBEN KIRANBHAI RATOJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(4), RAJKOT

In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee in her submission had submitted that the cash deposits were made by her husband Sri Kiranbhai Ratoja and did not pertains to her. In this regard, when query was made to submit PAN, Balance sheet, Return of Income, Trading Account, Profit and loss Account etc, of her husband, Sri Kiranbhai Ratoja, the assessee Labhuben K. Ratoja in her submission had submitted that the she had labour work of imitation jewellery, since long and had received small cash amount of labour work of imitation jewellery from various persons and had no other bank account except joint account with her husband, which was being operated and maintained by her husband and the cash deposits which was found to be deposited during demonetization period, was done by her husband. The assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee, as the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence, which shows that deposit of Rs.1,08,83,000/- in the bank A/c. No. 443005001000232, maintained with Jivan Commercial Co-Op bank Ltd, was made by her husband. Therefore, assessing officer made addition to the tune of Rs.1,08,83,000/-, under section 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act.

On appeal, by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the statement of the assessee was found contradictory during the course of assessment proceedings, as the assessee in first statement stated that the cash deposits in bank account was maintained by her husband and the same did not pertains to her. The assessee further stated that her husband did not file the return of income for the concerned year in view of income being below taxable income and submitted that the return of income of her husband was filed till the A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee therefore, failed to furnish the documentary evidence with regard to cash deposits either during the course of assessment proceedings or during the course of appellate proceedings. In this way the deposits remained unexplained form the part of the assessee. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by assessing officer.

Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee is in appeal before us.

On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue, submitted that assessee did not file the required documents and evidences during assessment stage or during appellate stage. The husband of the assessee has shown total income to the tune of Rs. 2,94,420/-, which is below the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax and the husband of the assessee did not show this cash deposit in his Balance Sheet and in the Income Tax Return filed by him, therefore, it raises doubt that husband of the assessee does not have any sources of income. Hence, to prove this fact by the assessee whether this money, (which was deposited during the demonetization period), belongs to husband or wife, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. DR for the Revenue to the effect that even the husband of the assessee does not have adequate source to explain such cash deposited during the demonetization period. Besides, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not submit the relevant documents and evidences before ld.CIT(A) and now the assessee wants to submit additional evidences. Therefore, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the mater may be remitted back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine these facts and additional evidences.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

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