NEHA TAMRAKAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), BHOPAL

Page 3 of 13 A.Y.2009-10 hence it is futile to wait endlessly for assessee looking to the persistent non-compliance made by him having left no option in hand I am resorting to the section 144 of the 'Act' and assessment is made on best of my judgement.”

2.3 Further in the aforesaid “Impugned Assessment Order” it is also recorded that “on perusal of the AIR information it was found that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 22,04,600/-. In absence of proper documentary evidence and looking to the fact that the assessee has not filed any return not only within the prescribed time-limit mentioned u/s 139 but also in compliance of the notice issued u/s 148 of the 'Act' hence cash deposit of Rs. 22,04,600/- is treated as unexplained income of the assessee for the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10.”

2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246 A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the Page 4 of 13

“In the original grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice u/s. 148 was issued only on 16.12.2016 and hence, the same is barred by limitation and accordingly, the assessment order is invalid and bad in law. However, perusal of the assessment order shows that sufficient opportunities were provided by the AO before finalizing the assessment as per his best judgment. 6.1 The relevant extract of the assessment order is reproduced hereunder :-"............ Hence, after recording reason u/s. 148(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and getting approval on 26.02.2016 from the competent authority u/s. 151 of the Act notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.03.2016 was issued. Due to change of incumbent notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 01.08.2016, 09.09.2016, 05.10.2016, 17.11.2016 requiring the assessee to furnish the queries raised wherein by 10.08.2016, 23.09.2016, 19.10.2016, 28.11.2016. Due to change of incumbent notice u/s. 129 alongwith last opportunity issued on 01.12.2016 and 16.12.2016 and fixing the hearing on 07.12.2016 and 19.12.2016 and served on 16.12.2016. On the given date neither any one attended nor any written reply was filed. Even no adjournment was sought till date by the assessee to make future compliance. In the absence of proper documentary evidence why shall not deposit in cash of Rs. 22,04,600/- in a Savings Bank Account as assessee's unexplained income. As on the given date neither assessee appeared nor any written reply was filed till date. As the assessment proceedings are not ad infinitum and is being barred by limitation on 31.12.2016, hence it is futile to wait endlessly for the assessee looking to the persistent non- compliance made by him having left no option in hand I am resorting to the section 144 of the Act and assessment is made on best of my judgement. 6.2 To verify the assessee's contention regarding no notice u/s 148 being issued within time, this office vide letter dated 01.09.2023 requested the AO to provide the proof of service of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO vide letter dated 21.09.2023 has stated that the notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 03.03.2016 through speed post bearing no. E1734581034IN and has also uploaded the copy of the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act issued on 03.03.2016. The copy thus uploaded by the AO is scanned and placed below for easy reference:

6.3 It may be noted that the address mentioned in the notice u/s 148 dated 03.03.2016 is similar to the address at which the assessment order along with the notice u/s 156 of the Act is issued. Hence, it can be fairly concluded that all the notices issued by the AO were issued at the same address i.e H No. A- 177, Sector-A, Indrapuri, Bhopal. Hence, there is no plausible reason to accept that though the assessee was able to receive notice dated 16.12.2016, the earlier notices issued on the same address would not have been served on her. In view of the above factual position the grounds number 1 and 2 raised by the assessee questioning the validity of the assessment order on account of non service of the statutory notices within the stipulated time limit, are hereby dismissed.

Page 6 of 13 A.Y.2009-10 as deposits made out of any undisclosed income. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 is unsustainable. It is also pertinent to mention here that though the assessee, against column 12 of Form 35, has mentioned that additional evidences are filed under Rule 46A, which includes the copy of bank statements and sale bills, the only document filed by the assessee is the copy of registration of Shop Establishment dated 22/06/2016. 7.3 Vide notice dated issued u/s 250 of the Act the assessee was specifically asked to submit her response on additional evidences as under: 10. In case any additional evidences are produced or proposed to be produced during the appellate proceedings, the exceptional circumstances as enumerated in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 under which your case falls should be specified along with necessary documents to support the existence of the exceptional circumstances so specified. In response the assessee merely submitted submitted that that "The "The Order Order is is Passed U/s 144 and the Assessee Failed To produce Necessary Evidence." 7.4 Thus, the assessee has made no efforts to substantiate the true nature of sources of cash deposited by her in the bank account. The assessee claims to be in the business of trading of copper and brass scrap and has filed her ROI on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act on a turnover of Rs. 15 lacs. But in the absence of any supporting documents to substantiate the nature of business activities allegedly carried out by her, no benefit of even the sum of Rs.15 lacs claimed to be deposits reflecting her business turnover can be given to her. Thus the reliance placed by the assessee on the Mumbai ITAT's decision in the case of ACIT vs. Ramlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. does not support the assessee's case as in her case the cash sales itself are doubtful. 7.5 In view of the above observations, the addition of Rs. 22,04,600/- made by the AO as unexplained deposits is hereby confirmed. Thus, additional ground raised by the assessee is Dismissed.

8. To conclude, the present appeal is DISMISSED.”

2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal

Page 7 of 13 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not providing adequate consideration for appellant submission. The Appellant prays that the EXPARTE order of CIT(A) passed without giving proper consideration be directed to be quashed and set aside.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in exparte dismissing the appeal of the Assessee and thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant prays that the said order be set aside to the CIT(A) for hearing on merits.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in conforming the addition of Rs. 22,04,600/- under Section 69 of the Act. The Appellant prays the said addition be directed to be deleted.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”

Page 8 of 13 A.Y.2009-10 application is made together with an affidavit dated 10.01.2026. It was submitted that impugned order is dated 17.01.2023 & that the same was not received by the assessee at that point of time. It was encountered by her when she logged on to the portal on 26.12.2024. It was also submitted by the Ld. AR that e-mail id is not on the record.

In form No.35 general e-mail id is mentioned. The said e-mail id itrdsc@gmail.com as is recorded in form NO. 35 do not belong to the assessee. The same is not in the access of the assessee. No physical copy of the impugned order was received by the assessee. It was submitted that the “Impugned Order” was passed after seven years. The delay was bonafide. There is no malafide intention of the assessee.

Sufficient cause is shown & hence the delay be condoned.

Per contra the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the department has no objection if the delay is condoned by this Tribunal. After carefully going through the condonaiton of delay application & affidavit in support we are of the considered view that the delay is not deliberate & there is no malafide intention of the assessee. Assessee has shown

1. AR that the “Impugned Order” be set aside & the matter be remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO on denovo basis. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue contended that “revenue has no objection if the “Impugned Order” is set aside & the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO subject to cost. In rejoinder the Ld. AR submitted that the Page 10 of 13

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have heard the submissions.

“Impugned Assessment Order” was under 144 of the Act no documents filed to sustainable turnover of 15 lakhs u/s 44AD & so on & so forth.

Page 11 of 13 A.Y.2009-10 This Tribunal desires meritorious disposal of the “Impugned Assessment Order” & so also of the “Impugned Order”. The assessee cooperation in this regard assumes importance. The Assessee cannot go in slumber mode. In our considered view & opinion the Impugned order should be set aside & is accordingly set aside back to the file of the Ld. AO for passing a fresh order on merits of the case. It is the expectation of this Tribunal that the assessee would give her full & complete details including latest e-mail id of her & counsel to the Department where notices could be served effectively by the department. The assessee to attend hearings as & when fixed & file reply & details as sought by the Ld. AO, be provided for.

4.4 In the premises drawn up by us, we set aside the “Impugned Order” & remand the case back to the file of the Ld. AO on denovo basis subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2500/- by assessee to the department by filling a challan In category “others”. The assessee is directed not take any credit of taxes, penalty, interest etc. against such payment of Page 12 of 13

5.2 Consequently appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. pronounced in open court on 16.01.2026