ANITA KUMARI SADH,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2565/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the assessee pleaded for an opportunity to present her case. In the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an elderly lady suffering from medical issues, failed to respond to notices from the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on cash deposits during demonetization and other bank credits, considering them unexplained. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to lack of response.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained credits and cash deposits were justified without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. Whether the penalty proceedings initiated were valid without proper consideration of facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA,

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Natani, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.02.2025Pronounced: 20.02.2025

ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. ADDL.JCIT(A)-2, Guwahati dated 26.03.2024, relating to assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds:-

1.

The Learned CIT(A] has erred in giving an opportunity of being heard to the assesse. The assessee, being nearly 70 years old lady, herself was suffering from various medical issues therefore was under hospitalization and she was not able to check her mails and income tax portal on regular basis. Accordingly, no response was submitted before Ld. CIT (Appeals).

2. That the Ld. AO grossly erred on the facts as well as in law by adding all the credit summations other than cash in the Bank Accounts of the assessee considering unexplained credits merely on the grounds of no response inspite of the fact that the entries in Bank Statements are self-explanatory in nature which is not justified and against the principles of natural justice. Kindly note that the Ld. AO also erred in considering the concept of peak theory before framing this order.

3. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 6,98,000/- u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of cash deposited in bank account during demonetization period. The appellant had already stated the cash deposit was out of opening cash in hand as on 01.04.2016 amounting to Rs. 21,294/- and cash withdrawal made during the F.Y. 2016-17 and kept cash in hand as on 31.03.2017 amounting to Rs. 5,51,211.93/- due to being old she keeps cash at her disposal for any treatment or unforeseen circumstances.

4. The Learned Assessing officer has also erred in initiating penalty u/s 271AAC(1), 270A and 272A(l)(d) without considering any facts and records submitted under e-assessments responses. The Appellant craves leaves to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal

5. That the Ld. AO grossly erred on the facts that the amount credited in the Bank Account of the Assessee cannot be considered as UNEXPLAINED MONEY u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the said amount is duly accounted for appearing in Bank Statements of the Assessee and cannot be considered as unaccounted. In the present case, the Assessee could not offer the explanation due critical illness.

6. That the assessee craves leave to add to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated herein above either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 5.2.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,36,270/-. AO made the addition of Rs. 6,98,000/- being cash deposits in demonetization period in bank account. AO noted that no compliance was made by the assessee for supplying the information in this regard.

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that no response was there from the assessee, hence, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Against this order, assesee is in appeal before me. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I note that both the authorities below have passed exparte orders and assessee is pleading an opportunity for properly canvass the case before the AO. Ld. DR has no objection. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. 2 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →