SAROJ GIDWANI,. vs. ITO WARD -54(1), DELHI, .

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Coming straightaway to the impugned section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE addition, learned counsel first of all submits that the assessee has raised additional ground of non-issuance of section 143(2) notice by the assessing authority which vitiates

I find no merit in the assesse’s instant additional ground going by National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 wherein their lordships has settled the issue in the department’s favour that all the relevant corresponding facts must form part of the case records. It is made clear that the assessee/appellant herein has not filed the corresponding assessment records which could substantiate her additional ground. The same is accordingly rejected.

Next comes the sole substantive issue on merits between the parties wherein the learned lower authorities assessed the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12,68,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

Learned Counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s return(s) of the preceding as well as succeeding assessment year indicating her to have been engaged in regular business in hospitality/restaurant sector. He further takes the tribunal to case records revealing cash withdrawals of Rs.17,72,000/-. It is in this factual backdrop that specific query was put to the assessee as to whether the said withdrawals Saroj Gidwani infact preceded the cash deposits or not. No satisfactorily reply has come from the assessee side. Be that as it may, the possibility of the assessee having past accumulated savings and similar withdrawal in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out.