SAWITA SHAH,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) AddI/JCIT(A)-,Guwahati has erred in not adjudicate the deposited Rs. 1000/- in saving bank account from the appellant has clearly shows appellant does not have anything else except Rs.2,25,000/- which she has invested in business which is bad in law and fact of the appellant's case.

6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) AddI/JCIT (A)-,Guwahati has erred in affirming charging of interest is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

8. For that the other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of appeal.”

Sawita Shah, AY: 2017-18 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remitted back to the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) as proper representation was not made. The Ld. DR did not oppose the request of the assessee.

“4.2 Ground of Appeal

No. i, ii, iii & iv:

1. For that the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer, WARD 3(1), PURNEA is against the weight of facts and evidences and contrary to the law and circumstances of the case.

2. For considering of alleged excess deposit in Bank amounting Rs. 2,25,000/- is actually Assesse’s Previous years savings which she had invested in the Business of CSP to smooth flow of the business. Under section 68 previous year savings can't be treated as Unexplained income.

3. Amount deposited is Rs.2,25,000/- which is under the Basic exemption limit provided by the law and is savings of previous year. As Amount is itself under Basic limit the case is not suited as Income escaped case.

4. Apart from this the Assesse has only deposited Rs.1000/- in saving Bank which clearly shows Assesse does not have anything else except Rs.2,25,000/- which she has invested in Business. 4.2.1 Verdict: The contention of the appellant has been gone through along with assessment order. It is noticed from the assessment order that the assessing officer has discussed the issue at length. He has proceeded to make addition amounting to Rs 225000/- u/s. 69A on basis of difference between the receipt from the Sawita Shah, AY: 2017-18 customer and the amount deposited. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference: "However, on perusal of the above table, it was clearly visible that the following amount was calculated as difference of actual receipt by the assessee from his customers as well as amount deposited in the bank account, details of which are as under: In this way, it was found that the assessee has made excess deposit of Rs.2,25,000/- in his bank account during the period of demonetization in demonetized currency and the assessee could not offer any valid explanation in this regard." During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant has furnished no reply/explanation/submission to substantiate her claim that the impugned amount of Rs 225000/- was available with her in preceding financial year. Further, it is claimed by the appellant that under section 68 previous year savings can't be treated as unexplained income. On perusal of assessment order it is noticed that the assessing officer has specifically has mentioned that the addition is being made u/s 69A of the Act. Hence the aforesaid contention of the appellant is not found correct. In the light of foregoing discussing and factual aspect of the case, the addition made by the assessing officer is confirmed. 4.3 Ground of appeal v: For the initiation of Penalty proceedings under section 270A is quite wrong, most illegal and arbitrary particularly so when the appellant has made deposits in the bank out of its previous years saving. 4.3.1 Verdict: The contention of the appellant has been gone through. The same being premature in nature, no adjudication is made at this juncture.

5. In the result, appeal is DISMISSED.” 5.1. In the Statement of Facts filed along with the appeal memo on Form No. 36, the assessee has submitted as under:

The Appellant, Sawita Shah runs a CSP centre. The Assessee has deposited Rs.13,38,600/- in her Bank account during the period of Demonetization. The Case was selected and issued Notices to appellant, in response appellant herself appeared time to time and discussed all the facts with the authority. As appellant was running CSP centre amount deposited was in the normal course of business. Under the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Assessing officer has made the assessment order vide Order No- ITBA/AST/S/91/2019-20/1020957014(1) DAT ED-12/09/2019 and made an addition of Rs 2,25,000/- as unexplained income. In the order the Ld. Assessing Officer has said that the total Amount deposited and total amount withdrawn is having a difference of Rs. 2,25,000/- and hence excess deposit is treated as unexplained income. However looks like that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not understood the nature of business as in the CSP; firstly CSP agent has to pay amount to the customer later on such amount gets credited in her account. So for the smooth flow of business CSP agents have to invested some own money as working capital in the business. Such 2,25,000/- is the money invested by appellant to run the CSP. Hence actually, the previous year Basic savings of the appellant which she had invested in the business as working capital has treated as unexplained which is not only wrong but also illegal and Sawita Shah, AY: 2017-18 harassment to the appellant. Appellant is just running a small business in which she has invested her all savings and now from CSP earning and surviving. That the appellant has aggrieved against the order passed by the ITO ward,3(1), Purnia and filed appeal before the CIT (A) Addl/JCIT(A)-,Guwahati and CIT (A) AddI/JCIT(A)-,Guwahati has passed an Ex-Party Order and confirmed income as above in the hands of appellant without consideration facts of the case which is already stated and submitted paper and document as evidence by the appellant before the Ld. Assessing Officer.

6. Thus, the appeal was dismissed on account of lack of proper representation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we consider it imperative to set aside the order of Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) and remit the matter of appeal to him to be decided de novo after affording an opportuning of being heard to the assessee and considering the submissions of the assessee. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournment and shall file all evidences in support of the claim before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). Hence, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

7. Further, the assessee has raised 8 grounds of appeal and they all relate to the addition of Rs. 2,25,000/-. Hence, Ground Nos. 1 to 5 are allowed for statistical purposes and Ground Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are either consequential or general in nature and do not require separate adjudication. Thus, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 1st January, 2025.