SHADI LAL TICKOO,SARKANLIGUND, ANANTNAG vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC DELHI

The assessee has taken two grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 one being denial of opportunity in presenting the evidence before the ld. First appellate authority and secondly, he has raised issue relating to refusal of the AO to accept that the cash that has been deposited in the bank account, was the life long savings of his father who has expired and also his personal savings.

Brief facts emerging from record are that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.10 lakhs (Ten lakhs) in his bank account with SBI ( A/c No. xxxxxxxx76237) during the demonetisation period and in absence of any return being filed by the assessee, proceedings were initiated by the AO vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 09.03.2018 calling for return. However, in absence of any response from the assessee to the notices issued by the department and on account of total non-compliance on the part of the assessee to subsequent notices and letters issued by the AO, the assessment has been completed u/s 144 on a total income of Rs.10,02,165/- (which include Rs.10 lakhs u/s 69A being the cash deposited during the demonetisation period plus an amount of Rs.2,165/- being business profits of the assessee).

The matter was carried in appeal and the ld. First appellate authority allowed part relief to the assessee by admitting that the assessee should be entitled to a relief to 2.5 lakhs on the basis of CBDT instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21.02.2017 on the ground that the assessee is entitled to the minimum benefit for the purpose of deposit of SBN notes in bank and the balance additions were sustained.

There has not been any appearance by the assessee or his AR before the tribunal and no adjournment application has been filed.

Considering the facts on record, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits of the case, after hearing the ld. DR. 7. It is seen from the records that the assessee has submitted an explanation before the ld. First appellate authority that he is an Ayurvedic Practitioner (Hakeem) and his father who has already expired (late) Some Nath Tickoo also an Ayurvedic Practitioner. He further submitted that savings of his late father and his personal savings, which were saved over the years at home has been in cash has been deposited in bank during the period of demonetisation on 10th and 11th November, 2016. 7.1 It was further stated that his late father has never filed his Income Tax Return and was not even a PAN holder. However he has not submitted any copy of death certificate of his father and it is not known, as to when his father has expired, and it is not ascertainable whether the assessee has any other family members with income earning sources, and no evidence of AYURVEDIC PRACTICE has been furnished before us. 7.2 It is also observed by us that in his submission filed before the ld. CIT(A), he has categorically stated that if required further documentary evidences and information will be furnished by him to substantiate his claim and for that a further opportunity should be allowed. But it is seen that inspite of giving one more opportunity no further documentary evidence has been filed explaining the cash deposit in bank during the demonetisation period. 7.3 However, considering the fact that the ld. First appellate authority has allowed the benefit of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the assessee the balance amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs still remains as taxable u/s 69A of the Act.